HEEE CQURT 9F QHE%1HSGARE AT BELAS?UR WRIT ?RTITEON (S) No. 3458 o’FZWEg NYHHQNER : Smt. Prabha Choubw Wk) im‘e gri émé? Kamar Chouhey, Agosci abotit 48 yams, Rfca ~ Ramgudipara. \"nWa Gali, Tahsii & District Raigarh (C.G.) RESPONDENTS VERSUS State of C§1hmisgarh ?.”Qmug%a v S€cretar3z School Education Dapartniem, D.K.S. Bhawan, Rai9ur (C.G.) 2. Joint Director, Treasuries Asceunts ai1d 1%15i0n, Division Bihspur. Déstt. — Bilaspur :OGUE 3. eputy Director Edvca£i031 Raigarh (C G ) 4. Diémct Education mncsr. Raigarh, Dim. g ‘Raigarh (CG) Biock Edgcaticm Oiiicer. Sarangarh, Distt. ~ Raigarh {CGJ WET YT PETITIO‘J UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONS'E‘1?£WION OF INDIA @RAL QEQBER {Passsd on O7E‘day of Juiy, 20%) By this petitinn, he petitiotier impugns the order dated 13.03.2006 issued 1w the respondent N0. 2 (Aenexure 13/4) fer recovery of a sum of Rs. 633752/- from the retiral dues towards excess peymem made to {he hus‘omxd o? the oetitioner on account ofwrong fixa‘don of wary ofthe peiitioner. The brief facts, in nuisheil, are the: the husband 0t“ the pet€tioner was injtiaily appointeé as Sa1esman in Commerciai Tax (Excige) Department on 07.“).1981. Thereafter, Vicie order deteé 5.12.1991 (Amermre PH.) passed by the General Admieistratton Eepartment, Bhopal, the servrees otter: petitioner’s husbarjd was absorbed anti war; posted in the ot‘é‘ice of Deputy Director, Education, Raigarh as tower Divietort we“ on 23.11992. (Amtexure 9 J2), During termre ofservice, the husband oft‘ee yetitiooer died (m l7.{}1.20{}2. Vide order dated 33,63,20il6 tssoee by the resporxdeet No 2 (Annexure PM) it was ordered to recover a sum of‘Rs. 63,752/- from the death Cum retirai éties tom “We pet§tioaer ,t SB: Hogfhk Shr§ Satish k Asymmmg'i‘ J: :jrasent Shri Saniay Patel, Advoceae for €he §ei§tione1i Shri Ajzw Dwivedi, De§3uty Govemmem Advoca? fAr the Siaiex rssponéents. 1% Being aggrieved, the peinar has §1e& this petition praymg that ihe impugned nréer datsd 3,()3.2()f)6 (Anaemie W4) for recovery of a sum of Rs. 63,752”- deducting excess amount from the pensionary beems without afforaing van oppommiiy o hear to put forward her case, is mega}, arbitrary and' um‘easonabie. 4. Learned counse appearing for the petitioner submits at there ‘is no fault on the part oft sband ofthe petitioner and t amount was paid to him iii accordance with the pay scaies, revsed and fixed by the respondents fvom time to time. Th i‘esponéents camot recover the amount; akeady paid to the husband of the petitioner after his death, that too without foliowg te pyinciples of natural justice. Learned counsel further subs that the petitior does not want to press other retiefs on merit except that the amount wch has atready been paid to the husbd of the petitir cannot be recovered from the death cum retiral duegratuity amount on account of excess oayment during that period without attordingn opportunity ot‘heari. 5. n the othr aed, teed couel appearing for tie respondents/State submits that since the pay o the petitioner was fixed contrary to the provisions and on scruny, it was found that excess amount has been paid; the same can be recovered from the death cum retai benefits/gratuity amount ot‘the husband of the etitioner without affording an opportuni othearing. h C p ty The Supreme Cour, in the case of Sahib Ram Vs. Stare ofHaryana am? others}, in para 5 has eld as under: t h “5....owever it is t on account of a misrepresentation made i3}! e appeiiant that the benefit hgher pay scale Was given to him but by wrong constmction made by the i’rincipai for which the appeiian cannot be held to be a fault. Under the circumstances t amount paid ti‘d date may not ‘oe recovered from the appellant.” ‘7. Further, in the matter of Shyam Balm Verma and others v. Union aflncz’z‘a and I. ofkerf, the Supreme Court has neid as under: “11. Although we have held that the petitioners were entitled oniy to the pay scale of Rs. 336-480 in terms of the recomaendations ot‘t’ne Third Pay Commission wet January L i973 and onty after the period of 10 years, they became received emitted to the t‘ue sdaie oat otRs-f330-560 soak: ct“ Rs since 330—560 1973 but due as to no they fault have of 99‘ 9 Srip§bds2i (l SCC 20 \x 1§éo 1 n f ing i th he hu he i e io h mit oe , hi an one s/ ’a ng O e h am ns a f ti ir .H no ny th of i t t he 9: This Court, in ihe case of Vyadhar Tiwari Vs. The State of Chha‘ttisgarh & Others”, has heid that the excess payment, if any, made to the petiiioner, he was not at fault anci the amount received by him might have been used by adjusting himself accordingty treating the same as his salary. At this stage, directing recovery of the ai‘segeé excess amount from the pensionaty benefitslgratiiity amount ofthe late husband ofthe petitioner will not be just and proper. in View ofthe foregoitig and as admitted by ieamed counsei appearing for both the patties, this‘petition is allowed in the terms of the order passed in the ease of Vidyadhar Tiwari (supra) i.e. the impugned order dated 13.03.2006 (Aimexure P/4) regarding recovery of Rs. 63,752I- from the death cum retirai dues/gratuity of the husband of the petitioner is hereby quashed. The petitioner is entitled to fut} pensionary benetits/gratuity amount without any deduction. However, the respondents are at liberty: if so advised, to take recourse to Ruie 65 of the Chhattisgarh Civil $eiviees (Pension) Rules, 1976, in aceordauce with law and basic principles ofnaturai justice. No order asto costs. gqi theirs and that scaie is being reduced in the year 1984 with effect from January 1, 1973, it shall be only just and proper not to recover any excess amount which has already been paid to them. Aeeordingiy, we direet that no steps should be taken to reeover or to adjust any excess amount paid to the petitioners due to the fauit of the respondents, the petitioners being in no way responsibte for the same.” 3 2006 $1) MPHT 105 (CG) \ x >. i; Sd/- ‘ 'fSatish K. Agnihotri j i Judge u "“'/r, id /