PETITIONER A} RE SPONDENTS SINGLE BENCH rQ?/&L/ /201o Forest IN THE HON’ BLE HIGH COURT OE CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR W.P. (S) NO. f Khilavan Prasad Vastrakar, S/o Late Shri Sevak 'Ram Vastrakar, aged about 60 years, R/ Quarter No. Palash—SO, Rajkishore Nagar, Bilaspur (C . G.) VERSUS The State o Chhattisgarh through - i ts Secretary , Departmeht of Forest , Secretariate, D.K.S. Building , Raipur (C . G . ) The Chief Conservator of (Vetan Nirdharan Avam Pension Prakosta) , Raipur (C . G.) The Divisional Forest Officer (D.F.O.) , Korba Division , Distt . Korba (C.G.) Th Joint Director, (Treasuries Account and a Pension) ,Bilaspur Division Bilaspur (C . G .) The District Treasury Officer, Distt. Korba (C.G.) o f e WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF~THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA N @ H!GH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WRIT PETITION (S) NO. 2704 OF 2010 Khilavan Prasad Vastrakar Petitioner Versus Respondents The State of Chhattisgarh & Others WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA (SB : Hon’ble Mr. Satish K. Agnihotri, J.) Present :- Shri Sameer Behar, Advocate for the petitioner. Shri P.K.Bhaduri, Panel Lawyer forthe State. ORDER (ORAL) ‘ {Passed on 03“ day of February, 201 1) Challenge in this petition ls tO the order dated 3.4.2010 (Annexure P-1), whereby the benefits of higher pay scale granted to the petitioner w.e.f. 1.1.1986 has been withdrawn with a direction to recover the amount. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was appointed on the post of Forest Guard on 12.05.1970 by the Divisional Forest Officer, Sahdol. Thereafter, he was promoted to the post of Forester vide order dated 21 5.2007, subsequently he was further promoted to the post of Dy. Forest Ranger by order dated 10.10.2008. The petitioner was granted pay scale whioh was in accordance with law. The authorities’without affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, directed to recover the amount, vide impugned order dated 3.4.201 O. Shri Behar, further submits that the petitioner has not been afforded any opportunity to put forward his case and explain that he was granted a pay scale which was in accordance with law. On the other hand. Shri Bhaduri, learned State counsel submits that the pay scale granted tothe petitioner was wrongiy med and as such the impugned order for recovery of the excess amount to the tune of Rs. 65,899!- paid to the petitioner, has been passed. 4. Be that as it may, the question asto whether, the petitioner was paid excess amount or proper amount, could not have been determined in absence of opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. Once, the petitioner has been granted the payment, he is entitied to every opportunity to explain and put ton/yard his case before the State takes an adverse decision holding that the excess payment was made and recovery thereafter. 5. The contention Of Shri Bhaduri, that the petitioner had given an undertaking to refund the money, if it is found excess, cannot change the nature of affording opportunity to the petitioner to put forward his case. Even otherwise, the undertakings given in Annexure R—1 & R-2 are in printed form, where it appears that signatures have been obtained by all the employees. Thus, the order passed by the authorities for recovery of excess amount is unsustainable in law. 6. This Court in Kanhaiya Singh Netam v. Madhya Pradesh Rajya Van Vikas Nigam Ltd. & Others’ observedas under : “1 2. ln a similar issue, asto whether recovery of excess payment for no fault of the employee can be made without following the principles of natural justice Hon’ble Supreme Court in Syed Abdel Qadir and others vs. State of Bihar and others2, having considered all the aspects of the matter and the decisions rendered by the Supreme Court in the past, observed as under : “57. This Court, in a catena of decisions, has granted relief against recovery of excess payment of emoluments/allowances if (a) the excess amount was not paid on 1 2010(2)c.e.L.J. 221 2 (2009) 3 scc 475 "\ \ l account of any misrepresentation or fraud on the partof the employee, and (b) if such excess payment was made by the employet by applying a wrong principle for calculating the pay/allowance or on the basis cf a parllcular lnterprelatieh 6f rule/order, which is subsequently found to be erroneous. 58. The relief against recovery is granted by couns not because of any right in the employees, but in equity, exercising judicial discretion to relieve the employees from the hardship that will be caused if recovery is ordered. But, if in a given case, it is proved that the employee had knowledge that the payment received was in excess of what was due or wrongly paid, or in cases where the error is detected or corrected within a short time of wrong payment, the matter being in the realm of judicial discretion, courts may, on the facts and circumstances of any particular case, order for recovery of the amount paid in excess. See Sahib Ram Vs. State of Haryana, Shyam Beau Verma Vs. Union of India; Union of India Vs. M. Bhaskar, V.Gangaram Vs. Director, Coi. B. J. Akkara (Retd) Vs. Govt. oflndia, Purshottam La! Das Vs. State of Bihar, Punjab National Bank Vs. Manjeet Singh and Bihar SEB Vs. Blfay Bhadur. " 7. ln view of foregoing, the impugned order dated 3.4.2010 (Annexure P-1) is quashed. lf any action to reduce or to recover alteged amount is taken, the same shall not be done without affording proper opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. The excess amount, if has already been recovered, the same shall be refunded to the petitioner forthwith. 8. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed to the above-extent. No order asto costs. Sd/— SATISH K. AGNH-IOTRI Judge ashok, 3