K‘QVw' HIGH COURT OF CHHATTI56ARH AT BILASPUR Writ Pa‘hfmljS) No 2557 of 2007 ‘ P¢ti+ion¢i Va'sus Sm? Saraswafhl Var-ma W/o' io'fe Manharan Lat Verma Aged about 45 years, R/o Gudrupur-a P.O. 'Mahasmund ' Dist,C.G.5tate. ‘ wK Secretary, Wafer Resources Department ‘ Govt L L of Chhaftisgwil, DKS Bhawan,‘ Wafer Department .Raipur Dist,,vC.G State Divis’iohdl ‘Jt. Directar, Treasury Accounts & Pension Ralpur CG State . Raipur Dist 66 State. r Engineer-m-chlef Resources - ‘ Writ petrhon mder Artucle 226 of the Canstitutinn of India Single Bench Hon'ble Mr Justice Satush K Agnihotri Mr. K.R.N‘air’, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Arvind Dubey, Panel Lawyer for respondents No. 1 and 2. ‘ Present: , ”var ORDER (Passed on 26'“ Day of Apml 2007) '1. By this petition the petitioner has prayed for a suttoble writ or direction _ to quash the order dated 2982005 passed by the respondent No 3 directing for recovery of a sum of Rs 114 234/- from the retlral dues of the petitioner s husband nameiy LateShrI Manhar Lal Verma on account of the fact that this amount was wrongly paid to the petitioner due to Incorrect fixation of salay 2. The brief facts in nutshell are’tha’t the petitioner's husband was pointed as Lower Dwislon Clerk m the Pay-scale of Rs 870—20-910-25- ' 1010-30-1220—4-1420/— m the Water Resou-ces Department Rmpur I Dmslon Raipur vxde order dated 4 1 1988 (Annexure P-l) Vlde order dated “ 12 5 1993 increment of Rs 20/- was granted to the petitioner s husba; . nd and relevmt entry um made In the serwce book wef 1111989 Respondents ’ @ (Annexure P-3). Thereafter, Pay-scde was revised by memo dafed 12.5.1993 issued by fhe General Administra‘rion Depmtmem, Bhopal w.e.f. 11.1.1988 and The reievmf eniry was made in the service book (Annexur-e P- 4). The husbmd of the petitioner Late Shri Manhar La! Verma was promoted to the post of Assistant Grade-II in the Pay-scale of Rs. 3050—4590/- w.e.'f. 11.1.1996 and relevmt entry was made in the service book as per Annexure P/5. Next higher Pay-scaie was granted after completion of 12 years of service in the same post w.e.f. 15.1.20m. Late 5hri Manhar Lal Verma died in a road accident on 20.4.2005. The petitioner made an application for grant of death-cum-retirement benefit. The respondent No. 3 raised an objection to the effect that increment granted earlier was not proper. Thus, the excess payment of Rs. 1,14,234I- was ordered to be recovered from the retiral dues. The said amount was recovered from his gratuity and from his leave encoshment. Being aggrieved, the petitioner has filed this petition seeking a direction to the respondents to refund the said amount as deducted illegally and without affording an opportunity of hewing, and interest‘thereon be paid to the petitioner. 5hri Arvind Dubey, learned Panel Lawyer appearing for the respondents/State submits that it‘is admitted that no opportunity of hearing was afforded to the petitioner or her husband before the impugned order making‘deduction of payment to the tune of Rs. 1,14,234/- was made. It is also admitted that the revision of pay as well as payment of revised pay was not done at the instance of the petitioner's husband. I have heard the learned counsel appewing for the parties, perused the pleadings and documents appended thereto. Th p e r t , f y f h h hf ecover. he mount i an, rom ie re1iml dues of te pefmoner, witou aff py hig pfi Th pd ording a1 oportunit of earn ‘fo fhe efioner. e resonenfs have also nt roVed fhaf fhe excess amenf was mode ofer ivin an o p py f gg y opprtunfy of hearing ro 1he petifioner. To substntiae his, submissions oi ‘ at , learned counsel appearing for fhe pe'hhoner cited a decnsion of fhis court m y Mu! 5fe f the case of Vidu smahr 77m Vs 5M1: of M P m o amafarld and o }. fig thers, reported in 2006 (2) M.P.H.T.31 (66 n the case o Vido ankor Timri (supra), after a eriod o our ears - . I f y Sh p f f y h d y p h d from te ate of fixation of salar of the etitioner e was directe to eosn te excess amoun is Court held that or the mistake o t dp h t Th f f he esponent/emoer the petitioner oould not be penalize wiout rdply d th fg p piif ollowin rinciples of natural justice. Before asking the’g’ettoner'or ” m f he afforded to aking refund of extra payment, m opportunity o wing was the petitioner. The petitioner had austed himself to the eats of the dj f c h l d d d h N ase and had utilized the money wat was egally m uly pai to im. o pportunity of hearing was given to the petitioner before the impugned rder was passed and as such the same is unreasonable, aritrar and o by deserves to be quwhed. . I Th pg d d n view of the foregoing, this petition is allowed. e imuned orer ated 29.8.2005 is quashed. The respondents are directed to refund the amount, f any, recovered pursuant to the order. dated 29.8.2005 from t i he etitioner. The amount, if any, recovered from he petitioner sall carr p t h y the interest a applicable in sailings bank account of nationali’zed bank from \ the date of recover till its ament. No order as to costs ’ y py . Sdl- Satish K. Agnihotri Judge ublmsi Sl o l