- §§§§&§§ §§§§mmaah yd: Ema $+j§m3§& dwqw h gwawwagggwgw 3% -$.w§§.gm§9~m§ “ 33...#33. %.awu§§4 wi§§.§3. _ ggmgmgggg mummam‘mgg $3Wjd¢mmj§ g §$§m§s§§%§j%§sm . wia - mimg “34 HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR (Hon. Mr. Justice Prvitinker Diwaker) Writ Petition (S) No. 3701 of 2005 RR. Dewangan VERSU S pETITIONER Siate of Chhattisgarh and others RESPONDENTS Shn H S Ahluwalia counsel for the petmoner Smt Smxtha Gha‘ PL for the respondents WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE W RDER (31 8 2010) Chailenge In the present writ petltlon 1s to the order dated 30 05 19 ' e ade to the petitioner. a retired Head Master of . Bnef facts of the case are that the petitioner rs 'g m MIV g Ul‘ (Annexure P 1) by whlch the petmoner has been directed to pay the amount Rs.14, 919 which accordmg to respondents/State was the excess paym t the School Educahon Department and retired In the same capacnty from A ’l Primary School Pulenl Block Kasdol DistrJctRaIpur on 3O 11 1997 ltis notut ' ‘ ispute that Initially the petitioner was appomted as Assistant teacher on 22 3 1958 at Primary School Pachri Raipur promoted to the post of Head Master on 29 O4 1981 and continued on the said post till his retirement Iel 0.11.1997. lt Is also not In dispute that the petttioner was granted the benefi 3 (of recommendation ubmlts that the order Impugned date . Counsel for the petitioner s d whatever amount he ha accepted the same a retrrement He su s of Choudhary Pay Commission as also that undamental Rule 22 D on the post of Head Master F d 30.05.1998 has been passed Without gIVIng any opportunlty of hearing to the petitioner and that the petitioner had not drawn any excess amount an s been paid by the respondents the petitioner ha . V Y s his salary right from 29 04 1981 till the date of his c bmlts that If any excess amount was paid to the petl part the respondents are not entitled to r tioner for ecover the same not at fault at all I “ ” s no fault on his Accordlng r} played any fraud to the counsel for the petitioner the petitioner was receIVIng the benefit of the higher pay scale nor had he presented any manner whatsoever In so dOIng the recovery a and uncalled for He submit misre ‘ contemplated by the respondents Is wholly Illegal 9 m 2 d 3 t o 3 ; i r OJ ‘ ~2A that the case of the petitioner Is squarely covered wrth the decrsron of the Ape)% Court m the matter of Sahib Ram vs State of Harvana and other§ r reported m 1995 Supp (1) SCC 18 m which It has been held as under J: “However, it is not on account of any misrepresentation made by the appellant that the benem‘ of higher pay scaie was given to him but by wrong construction made by the Principal for which the appellant cannot be held to be at fault. Under the circumstances, the amount paid till date may not be recovered from the appellant. " Similarly in the matter of Vidvadhar Tiwari vs. State of C.G. and oth reported In 2006(1) MPHT 105 it has been held by the High Court o Chhattisgarh that for the excess payment if any, made to the petitioner when he was not at fault and the amount received by him might have“ been used by adjusting himself accordingly treating the same as hid salary. At this stage, direction for recovery of the alleged excess amou ‘ , from the pensionary benefits ofthe petitioner will not be just and proper l 4. Counsel for the petitioner submits that the penSionary benefits we given to the petitioner only after deducting the entire amount of Rs 14 91 depOSIted by the petitioner through Bank challan and therefore the responden may be directed to refund the same along with 6% interest to the petition‘ within four months from the date of receipt of copy of this order 5i State Counsel does not dispute the fact that the amount sought to b recovered from the petitioner was given to him under FR 22 D though he wad n . Admittedly the amount which has been paid to the petitioner was towards he salary of the post of Head Master and the petitioner was not at fault nor has ’ i i p i ot entitled for the same, the recovery was sought. i i 3i , ' " ‘ X 6 t he misrepresented in any manner whatsoever or played fraud With thd espondents in so deing.‘ ln this View of the matter the order impugned is s side. — 7. in the result, the petition is allowed and the order impugned is s aside. Amount of Rs. 14,919 deposited by the petitioner through. ‘ Bank challan is directed to be‘retunde'd to him within a period of fouit onths from the date of receipt of copy of this order, with interest at the“ H rate of 6 per cent per annum. ’ Pritinker Diwaker Judge er = r t e‘ i e ‘ r e a e ‘ m i