l(^i^^£^:'SSSsf ::X SSW9S:WSSSSSiSiiSSS3!s9s9 !SSiSSiSSSSSSSS^ I:. ,i^^^^%^.^;';^i^tli?:^S®^^^I^ iM%^%^J^^^t^^ ^•®iSK" :®"SR:X^SMsgBS'g'S^3ggK%?';^:!s' '?;:; ^SSl;?^ ^^%|%i.li::^3?s;!' !:;?^'K — ISHIIB'Ss'S^ •::• ys^s III w. IN THE HIGrH eOURTOF GHHATnSGARH AT BILASPUR W.P. No.J^^ /2005 PETITIONERS ^^ .^ .^^ ^o'. ••"\^.v .-•' ^ * .^(.Ny .•••" ^y^ ^^ ^ 3. Mannu Lal Lariya, S/o. Late Sattu Lal Lariya, Aged about 62 y^ars, R/o. Chikhli, Ward No.3, Rajnandgaon, Distt.Rajnandgaon (C.G.) ./ ChaituTaDi Sahu, S/Q.Late Jadu Ram Sahu, Aged about 69 years, R/o.Baktawar Chal, GaU No.8, Rajnaadgaon, Distt Rajnandgaoa (C.G.) Late Smt. Lalita Satm, W/o. Ghaitu Ram Satru, Repre^nted thl-ough Husband t ehaitistraiit Satiu, K/o.Baktawar CIL®I; Gali No-8, Rajnaudg^ort, ! Distt Rajnaridgaon (C.G.) VERSUS RESPONDENTS ^o^ :iff>^'^ ll^i^ Stafce of CUhattisgarh, Through. (he Aceoiuitant Greiaeral Aceounts Pension ahd Treasuries D.K.S. Bha|wan, Mantialaya; Rai.pur(C.G.) rttte{ iJoint Director, Tlreasuiy Actiountant & Pen^Qn, ^G.)!: ;:•• - :: ",,;.j j»»l! :-;:n:l*«tTlr.41 •^•- 3. The Joint Director, Treasury Account and Pension, Rajnandgaon, Distt Rajnandgaon (C.G.) 4. The Block Education Officer, Rajnandgaon, Distt Rajnandgaon (C.G.) 5:. The Principal, High Secondary School, Shanlsarpur, District Rajnandgaon (C.G.) WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226/227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA FOR ISSUANCE OF AN APPROPRIATE WRIT IN THE NAT_URE OF MANDAMUS/ CERTIORARI ETC. FOR DIRECTION/ORD_ER IN THE LIKE NATURE ETC. F /jSSf' ^~~\ HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR (Hon. Mr. Justice Pritinker Diwaker) Writ Petition No. 5578 of 2005 PETITIONER RESPONDENTS VERSUS Mannu Lal Lariya and others State of Chhattisgarh and others Shri Roop Naik, counsel for the petitioners. Smt. Smitha Ghai PL for respondents. WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226/227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA ORDER (27.10.2010) Petitioners No. 1 and 2 are the retired Assistant Teachers and petitioner No.3 is the wife of petitioner No.2 Chaitu Ram Sahu and she died during the course of her employment on the post of Assistant Teacher. Challenge in this petition is to the validity of Annexure P-1 by which amount of Rs. 29,991, 7,328 and 25,576 has been recovered from their respective gratuity amount. 2. Counsel for the petitioners submits that after completion of 12 years of service the petitioners were granted the time bound pay scale and then after completion of 24 years they were granted the second time bound pay scale vide Annexures P-2 and P-3. According to him, while granting the second time bound pay scale they were granted the pay scale of Rs. 5500 - 175 - 9000 with effectfrom 1.1.1998 which was subsequently revised on 17.10.2000. He suhmits that without giving any opportunity of hearing to the petitioners no recovery can be made and thus the order of recovery suffers from illegality and arbitrariness. He submits that this matter is squarely covered by the decision of this Court in the matter of Vidvadhar Tiwari v. State of Chhattisaarh and others reported in 2006 (1t MPHT 105 (CG) and therefore its disposal on the same terms would serve the purpose. 3. Countering the submission of the counsel for the petitioners, State counsel submits that inadvertently order dated 17.10.2000 was passed granting the benefit of second time bound pay scale to the petitioners with effect from 1.1.1998 and in fact they were not entitled for the same with effect from the said date and that being so the petitioners are not entitled for retention of excess amount paid to them and therefore the recovery made from them is just and proper and requires no interference in this petition. t 4. It is not in dispute that the said benefit was granted to the petitioners without there being any misrepresentation on their part. In the matter of Sahib Ram v. State of Harvana and others reported in 1995 Supp (1) SCC 20 it has been held by the Supreme Court as under: "However, it is not on account of any misrepresentation macfe by e appellant that the benefit of higher pay scate was given to him but by wrong construction made iby 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 P. Tulsidas and others v. Government of A.P. and others reDorted in AIR 2003 SC 43 it has been held by the Supreme Court that benefit accrued earlier by way of grant of higher pay scale or revised pay, cannot be taken away as the same is violative ofArticles 14 and 16 ofthe Constitution of India. 5. Thus applying the aforesaid legal position to the case in hand, this Court is of the view that the petition deserves to be allowed. Accordingly, the petition is allowed and the order impugned (Annexure P-1) is set aside. Amount so recovered be refunded to the petitioners with simple interest. No cost. Sd/- 1 Pritmker Diwaker 1 Judge