Petitioners Respondents H10H_C^URTOFCHHATTISGARH:Bi^^ Writ Petition No. 19 of 2004 1. Thakurram Dadsena, s/o. Rsmnath Dadsena, aged about 37 years, occupatlon - Asslstant Teacher, posted at Go^/t. Primary Schoo!, Nartora, DJstt. Mahasamund, r/o. Pachri, P.0. Nartora, Tahsil & DJsti:. Mahasamund. 2. Smt. Usha Devi Sharma, w/o. Shri K.K. Sharma, workjng as Assistant Teacher, posted at Kodekera, Distt. Mahasamund. 3. Smt. Chameii Chandrakar, w/o. Shri Rewaram Chandrakar, working as Assistant Teacher, posted at Prlmary School, Umarda, Distt. Mahasamund. 4. Bhimdev Chandrakar, s/o. Shri Neeikanth Chandrakar, working as Assistant Teacher, posted at Primary Schooi, Pacheda, r/o. Kurmipara, iVlahasamund, Distt. Mahasamund. 5. Kishan Lai Sahu, s/o. Shri Ghasiyaram Sahu, working as Assistant Teacher, posted at Primaiy Schooi, Bokaramuda, BiockBagbahara, Distt. Mahasamund. 6. Dheluram Sahu, working as Asssstant Teacher, posted at Primary Schooi, Lamidihi, Block Pithora, Distt. Mahasamund. Versys 1) The State of Chhattisgarh, through the Secretary, Department of Schoot Education Mantraiaya, D.K.S. Buiiding, Ralpur (CG). 2) The Commissioner of Pubilc instructions. Raipur (CG). 3) The District Mahasamund. Education Officer, 4) The Joint Diredor, Public instructlons, Ralpur Divisjon, Rajpur (CG). (Writ Petition under Articie 226/227 ofthe Constitution of India.) SS: Hon'bie Mr. Satish K. Agnihotri, J. Present: Ms. Renu Koc-har, counse! for the petltloners. IVSr. Rakesh Jha, Panei Lav/yer for the State. -.-m»:^^5..^,.^»».»^^,»ew^MS--^^^. -2 - ORAL ORDER (Passed on ihls 11th day of February, 2009) With the consent of iearned counsei for the parties, the matter is heard finaiSy. 2) Ths petitioners were initially appointed as Assistant Teachers in the Department of Sohool Education for a probatlon penod of three months and thereafter their services were regularized, Their pay scale was fixed at Rs.4000/5000/-, in pursuance of the order dated 18-5-1999 (Annexure A/9) passed by Deputy Director, Pubiic Instructions, Education District Mahasamund. All of a sudden by Impugned order dated 4-2-2002 (Annexure A/1) passed by the respondent No.3 - District Education Officer, Ivlahasamund, the pay scale of Rs.4000/50QO/- was reduced to Rs.1200/- on the ground that due to mistake the hlgher pay scaie has been granted. 3) Learned counsel appearing for the petltioners submits that the petitioners were not given any opportunity to explaln about the payment made to the petitioner. Thus, thls order Is vitiated for want of compliance of the princlples of natural justlce and falr piay in-actioiT. Learned counsel further submlts that there is no fault on the part of the petltloners and the amount Is pald to them in accordance with the pay scales, revised and fixed by the respondents from time to tsme. No reason has been asslgned asto on whlch count the excess payment, if any, was made. The respondente cannot recover the amount, aiready pald to the petltioners without foilowing the principles of natural justice. 4) Learned counsel appearing for the respondents/State submlts that it is true that no show cause notlce was given to the petltloners. The petitioners were not called upon to submit their expianation for maklng the alleged excess payment. 5) The respondent authorlties have not followed the principles of natural Justlce and the impugned action has been taken without affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioners. The practice of passing order Invoivirsg clvii consequences, wlthout show cause notlce or without affordlng an oppOi'tunity, is condemned. Thus, thls action of the respondent No.3 Is bad on account of the fact that the petitioners were not afforded any opportunity of hearing before the impugned action was taken, also. ^ 1 Raju -z- 6) The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Sahib Ram Vs. State of Haryana and others in para 5 has heJd as under: ''5. However, it Is not on account of any mjsrepresentation made by the appe!lant that the benefit of higher pay scaie was gjven to him but by wrong constructlon made by the Prindpai for which the appeiiant cannot be held to be at fault. Under the circumstances, the amount pald ti!i date may not be recovered from the appeijant." 7) The Hon'bie Supreme Court in the case of P. Tylsldas and others v. Government of A.P. and others2, observed that the benefit accrued earlier by way of grant of higher pay or revised pay, cannot be taken away as the same is violative of Articie 14 and 16 of the Constitutlon of india being arbitrary, unreasonabie and expropriatory. 8) This Court, in the case of Vldyadhar Tiwari Vs. State of Chhattisgarh & others3 has held that for the excess payment, If any, made to the petitioner, he was not at fauit and the amount received by him might have been used by adjustlng himseif accordlngly treatlng the same as his saiary. At t'nis stape, directing recovery of the aileged excess amount from the pensionary benefrts ofthe petitioner will not bejust and proper. 9) in view of the reasons mentloned hereinabove, thls petition is allowed. The impugned order dated 4-2-2002 (Annexure A/1) dlrecting recoveiy on account of excess payment made to the petitioners, is hereby quashed. if the amount has been recovered, the petitioners are entitled to the said amount v^lth interest at the rate of 8% per annum. However, it is open to the respondents to take any step, if so advised, in accordance with law foilowing basic principies of natural justice. No order asto costs. Sd/- SatishK.Agnihom Judge 11995Supp(1)SCC20 2AIR2003SC43 32Q06(1)NPHT105(CG)