^r' HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR DIVISIONBENCH Coram HON'BLE SHRI RAJEEV GUPTA. CJ. & HON'BLE SHRI SUNU- KUMAR SINHA, J. APPELLANTS (RESPONDENTS) ) RESPONDENTS PETITIONER Wrtt Appeal No.121/2008 1. State of Chhattisgarh, Thfough: The Secretary, Department of Home Police, Mantralaya, D.K.S. Bhawan, Raipur(C.G.) 2. The Director General of Police, Poltoe Head Quarter, Raipur (C.G.) 3. Superintendent of Police, Jagdalpur, Distt. Bastar (C.G.) Versus 1. Milan Ram Patwa, S/o Late Shri Makhanlal Patwa, OcciqMrtion - Retd. Subedar (M) Aged about - 61 years, R/o Avintika Colony, Jagdatpur, District - Bastar (C.G.) 2. Director, Treasury, Accounts and Pension, Pandri, Raipur(C.G.) 3. Joint Director, Treseury, Accounts and Pension, Jagdalpur, Distrtct - Bastar(C.G.) Writ Appeal Under Section 2 ofChhrttisaarh Hiah Court (Aopeal to D'lvision BencM Act 2006 Present: Shri Prashant Mishra, learned Advocate General with Shri Kishore Bhaduri, leamed Addttional Advocate General for the appellants/State. JUDGMENT (20th June, 2008) The following judgment of the Coyrt was passed by Rajeev Gupta, C.J.: '^. 'Y Shri Prashant Mtshra, leamed Advocate ©eneratwfth Shrt Kishore Bhaduri, learned Addttional Advocate Generat for the appellants/State are heard on admission. 2. Shri Prashant Mishra, leamed Advocate General submits that in view ofthe direction contained tnpara 10 ofthe impug^ted order, the appellants were advised not to filea writ appeal against the impugned order; Learned Advocate General further submlts that as inspite of the above advice, the appeHants insisted on filing a writ appeal against the impugned order, the present wrft appeal has been filed. 3. The matter relates to recovery of a sum of Rs.3,79,€^7/- from the retiral dues of the petitioner/respondent No.1 towards excess payment made to him on accourrtofthe wrong fDcation of his salary. 4. The Apex Court in the case of Sahib Rain Vs. State of Haryana and others: reported in 1995 Supp (1) SGC 20, considering the permissibility of recovery of the excess amount paid in that case observed in para 5: "5. However, it is not on account of any misrepresentation made by the appellant that the benefit of higher pay scalewas given to him bvtby wrong construction made by the Prindpal for which the appellant cannot be held to be at faulfc Under the circumstances the amount paid till date may not be recovered from the applicant" 5. Learned Single Judge considering that the petitipner/respondent No.1 was not to be blamed for the excess payment, in any manner, and following the above quoted dictum of the Apex Court in the case of Sahib Ram Vs. Strte of ^ "<... Haryana and others (supra) passed the impugned order dated 30-04-2008 whereby the writ p^ition was allowed and the o(der dated 31-05-2006, impugned in the writ peftition regarding recovery of Rs.3,79,097/- from the retiral dues of the wrtt petitioner was quashed. Learned Single Judge, hoiwever, left it open to the respondents/appellants, if so advised, to take recourse to Rule 65 of the Chhattisgarh Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1976, in accordance wlth law and basic principtes of natural justice. 6. On due consideration of the submissions of the l^imed Advocate General appearing for the appellants, we do not find any infirmity in the impugned order which may warrant interference in this writ appeal. 7. The writ appeal, therefore, is liabte to be dismissed and fe hereby dismissed summarily. LU Sd/- Chief Justice Sd/- Sunil Kumar Sinha Judge