AF^ HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILAS 1 Wnt Petition (S\ No. 2276 of2006 Petitioner: Gopinath Izaidar, S/o Makhansai, Agcd about 65 years, Retired teacher, R/o Badc Nawapara, Thasil sarangarh.Uistt.-Kaigarfa (C.O.) Versus Respondente: 1. The State of Chbattisgarh, Through - Secretary, Tribal Wclfare dcpartmcnt, U.K.S. Bhawan, Raipur (C.G.) 2. Assistant Coinnussioner, '1'ribal wetfaic departtnent, Dwision - Ra^arh, Dist- Rajgarh (C.G.) 3. Joiat Dircctor, Accouuts trcasury aad pcasion, Bflaspur. /\. CoUsctor, Raigarb. 5. Uistrfct Kducation OflBcer, Raigarh. b, Block liducatKin Ufficcr, BaraBikela,Distt,-Raigarti(C.G.) WRIT PETITION UBDERAKTICLB 326/227 OP THE COHSTITUTIOil OF IHDIA Sis^e Beaeh; Hon'blc Mr, Justicc Satish K. Agniliotri. Shri Sanjay Patel, Advocate for fhe petitioner. Sint. Aaju Ahuja, Depufy GovL Advocate for the respondents. ORDER ( Passed on this 25dl riay ofApril, 2007) 1. The petitioncr is aggrieved by fh.e actiou of fhe respondents whereby the respondents are uiteDding to recover a sum. of Rs. 2,98,408, as per the Chart (Aiuiexure P/3), as excess payment made to ftie 'petitktuer. 2. The brief facts, iu autsheU, are fhat fhe petitioner was appointed ou the post ofTeacher vide order dated 5.9.1964 (Anncscure P/ 1). Since the petitk>ner had coinpleted 24 years of seryice as on ^ 11.9.1988 he waa @wen (he benefit of ftie pay scale ofRs. 5000- 800)/- vide order dated 25. 1.2002 (Axmexure P/2). The petitioner retired fioni fhe service ou attaming the age of supcratuiuation w.e.f. 31.7.2004. According to fhe pctitioner, after his retireineat fix>m semcc, when he approached tbe concemed respoadent for payment ofhis retixal dues, it was in&rmed to the petitioner fhat a Chart (Annexure P/3) is prepared, accordmg to which a suin of Rs. 2,98,408/- is rccoverabte Irom. fhc petitioner. 3. Leamed counsel appearfag for the peti.tioner submits that fhere is no fault on fhje part of the petitioner and the amount is paid to him iu aocordance wifh the pay scales, revteed by fhe respoudents fiiom time to time. The respoadents cannot recover fhe amount, ahcady paid to fhe petitioner, after such a long period, afier his retirement, fhat too without foUowmg ftie principtes ofrtatural justice. 4. Per contra, leamed counsel appearing for the respondeuts submits tfaat the petitioner had submittcd undertakmgs dated 6.4.1990, 8.6.1998 aad 2.11.2004 (Annexure R/3) that if aay excess payinent in his salary and deamess allowance is made, the respoudents wouM. be entifled to deduct the same fh>m his pension and gratuity. 5. Thc Suprcmc Court in thc casc of Saliib Raaa Vs. State of Haryaaa aad others1 iu. para 5 has hcld as uadcr:- "S. Adm.ittedly the appellant does no( possess the required educaltonal quaftjicarions. Under fhe drcumsUuwes the appelkavt wauld rusl be enKtled to the relaxaUon. The Prindpal erred in gmnting han the relaxation. Sinoe the date of rekixation the appellanf had been pcdd his sdlary on the revised soafe. Hawever, it is rmt on aooount of any p ^; rwarepresentalion made by the appeVant Owct the benefit of the hi'gher pay soale was given to hi'm buf by wrong oonsfrucft'on. made 6y (he Prindpal for which the appeHanf oaawwt be held to be at fccult. Under the circumstances the amowtf pcdd titt dafe may nb( be recovered fram, the appeVafVt...............' 6. This Coiut in tfac casc o! Vidyadhar Tiwari Vs. State of CMiattis^u'h & otStes^* has hcld fhat for fhc cxccss payiacut, if any, raade to the petitioner, he was not at fault and the amount icceived by him might have been used by adjustmg himself accordingty treating fhe saine as his salary. At this stage, directing recovery of fhe aBeged excess amount fium. the peusionary benefits ofthe petitioner wffl aot be just aud proper. 7. In vicw of fhfi foregoing, fhis petition stauds disposed of in tenns of fhc ordcr passcd iu thc casc. of Vidyadhar Tlwari (Supra). However, in fhe facts of fh.e case fhe respondents/aufhorities are at liberty to hold an enquiry aud pass appropriate order after affording an opportunity ofhearmg to the petitioner, ifso advised. Consequentiy M(W)P No. 1735/2006 stands disposed of. { 1995 Supp (l) 8.C.C. 20»,, {2006 (1) M.P.H.T. 105 (C.G.p} Sd/. Satish K.Agnihotri Judge Thakur