HIGI1COURTOF_CHHATTISGAM-LATBILASPUR \1T PETmQNERS RES 4F(S WMT PETmON (S) No. 3677 of2006 : 1. Pamieshwar 'S'ahu S/o Sia-i D.C.Sahu, Aged about 32 years, R'o R-em Nagar, Jalgaon Chowk, post DaiTi, Dist Korba ('CUliattisgarii). 2. Mohasipari Goswami S/o Slit'i Soaapari Goswanii, Aeed about 31 vears, R/b vill. Kartala, Dist. Korba (Chhattisgarh). 3. Bhaiyalal Yadav S./o Sliri Jagatram Yadav, Aged about 32 years, R/o village Chodha, Post Murli, Pali, Dist. Korba (Chhattisgarh) 4. Devi Prasad S/o Sim Hiralal Aged about 32 years, R/o Dhunghutipara, Primar\' School Pali, Dist. Korba (ClAattisgarh). 5. Chandrashekhardas S/o Shri Anioldas, Aged about 33 vears, R/'o village Polani, Post Silli Pali, Dist. Korba (Chhattisgarh). 6. Kuinan Singii S/o Shri Khuslii Siiigli, Aged about 33 vears, R/'o village Gond. Pai'a, Block Podopara, Dist. Raipur (Cliliattisgarh). VERSUS : 1. State of CUiattisgarh Thi-ough the Secretan', Deptt. of Tribal Welfare D.K.S. Bhawaii, Mantralaya, Raipur (Chhattisgarh) 2. Comniissioner, Tribal Welfare- Korba, District (Chhattissarh). 3. Assistant ConBmssioner. Tribal Welfare, Korba Dist. Korba (Chhattisgarh). 4. Block Education Officer- Katghora, District Korba Chhattisgarh. 5. Block Education Officer, Pali, District Korba (ClAattisgam). 6. Block Education Offieer, Pondiupara, District Korba (Chhattisgarh). WRIT PETITION L7NDER -4.RTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITm'ION QF INDIA Present: Sbri Asiiish Shrivastava, Advocate for the pelitioners. Sliri Shashank Thakiir, 'Panel Law.er for the State'respondenS (Passed on 16 day of Juiie, 200°) By this petition, the petitionera impugii the orders dated (Annexure P/l), 30.05.2006 (Amex-ure P/2) and 07.06.2006 P/3) whereby aa order to taake recovery ofthe excess the petitioners, was passed. 31.3.2006 (.'^rttiexiire [t made to ,,A-"^ § ^&s \^^ "^Q-xslBy 2 The indisputable facts, in nutshell, are that the petitioners were appointed on the post of Assistant Teachers on probation through proper selection on 04.08.1993 (Aimesaire P/5). After completion oftwo years, the petitioner No. 1, by order dated 01.11.1999 (.^Limexiire P,/7), petitioner No. 2 to 5, by order dated 13.02.2006 (Annexure P/8) and petitioner No. 6, by order dated 20.09.2005 (Annexure P/9) wsrs granted regular pay scale. All of a sudden, without issuing any show cause tiotice, a recoven' order in case ofpetitioaer No. 1 was passed on 31.3.2006 (Aimexure P/l) a&er a period of about 7 years, in case of respondent No. 2 to 5 on 30.05.2006 (Atme3aire P/2) and in case of petitioner No. 6, on 07.06.2006 (Aimexure P/3) withiii a period of 9 months. Leamed counsel appearing for the petitioners submits fhat the petitioners have not made aiiy misrepresentation or fi'aud. Tlie petitioners have been granted the benefit of regularisation, which even otherwise the petitioners are eiititled to after completion of probation period. Further, the petitiotiers have utilized the said auiount for up-keep of fheir families. The petitioners have no knowledge that the payment received was in excess or were wrongly paid or there was any error in Per contra, Shri Shashank Tnakiir, leamed Panel Lawyer appearing for fhe State/respondents submits tfaat the petitioners have been paid regular pay seale on aecount ofmiscalculation or 'nTong interpretation made by the officers as the period of probation was tihree years and the petitioners have been granted regular pay scale after completion oftwo years. It is not fhe case of the respondents that any iTusrepresentation v/as made by tiie petitioners. Further, the petitioners knew the fact that they have been made payment in excess ofwhatever was due.' I have heard leamed counsel appearing for t'ne parties, penised the pleadiags and documents appended thereto. It is evident that the pa\-ment was made to the petitioners aot on account of any misrepresentation or fraud. B is also not clear asto whether the petitioners kaew about the fact that the pa^-inent made to them was in excess. Adniittedly, accordmg to the respoadents, the pa^ment was made on miscalculation or misiaterpretation ofthe provisions. 6. . Law is well-settled. The Hon'ble Suprenie Court, in Syed Abdv.1 Oadir and others v. Stale of Bihar and others, having considered all the decisions of the Supreme Coiul in Sahib Ram v. State of Harymia, ShyamBabit Verma v. Union oflndia, Union oflndfa v.M. Bhaskar, V. Gangaram v. Director, Col. BJAkkara (Retd.) v. Govt. of India, Piirv.shottam Lal Das v. State of Bihar, Pury'ab Natior.al Bank v. Manj'eet Singh and Bihar SEB v. Bijay Bahadw; observed as imder: "57. Tiiis Court, in a catena of decisions has g-aated relief against recovery of excess payment of emoluments/aUowances if(a) fhe excess amount was not paid on aecount of any misrepresentation or fraud on the part of the employee, and (b) if such excess payment was made by tiie einployer by applying a wrotig principle ofcalculatmg tlie pay/allowance or on the basis of a particular mterpretatioii of rule/order, wliich is subsequeatly found to be en'oneous. 58. The relief against recoven- is granted by courts not because of any right in tlie employees, but in equiry, exercismg judicial discretion to relieve the employee from the hardslup that will be caused ifrecovery is ordered. But, ifin a given ease- it is proved that the employee had knowledse that the paymeiit received was in excess of what was due or wroagly paid, or in case -wbeie the error is detected or con'eeted within a short time of wrong paynient, the matter being in the reatoa ofjudicial discretion, courts may, on the faets and circumstances of anv particular case, order for recovery ofthe amount paid in excess. See Sahib Ram v. State ofHaryana, Shyam Babu Venna v. Union oflndia, Union of India v. M. Bhaskar, V. Gangaram v. State ofBjhar, Piinj'ab National Bank v. Manj'eet Singh aiid Bihar SEB v. Bij'ay Bahachir. 59. Undoubtedly- tlie excess amount that has been paid to the appellant teachers was not because of any misrepresentation or fraud on thsir part and the appellants also had no knov/ledge that tlie amount tliat was being paid to tliem was more tlian what tliev were entitled to. It would not be out of plaee to mention Siere that the Finance Departmeiit had, m its counter-afEdavit, adiTiitted that it was a bona fide mistake on their part. The excess payinent made was the result ofwrong inteq^retation of the Rule that was applicable to them, for which the appeilants caimot be held responsible. Rather, the whole confasion was because of inaction, negligence and carelesstiess ofthe officials concemed ofthe Goveninieiit of Bihar. Leamed counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant teachers subniitted that niajority of tlie beneficiaries have either retired or are on the verge of it. Keegiag ia view the peculiar facts and circumstaices of the cas8 at hand aiid to avoid any hardship to the appellant teachers, we are of the ('2009'.! 3 SCC 475 ./> ^S-4 '"'^ fd^ \ i 1 ~'""~Ksa i' '^iV-rf^'1' .^:: '^^^KS^''' 7 ^ vievi' that no recoven' of the anioimt tiiat has been paid in excess to tlie appellasit teachers should be made." This is a case where no misrepresentation or fraud has been established on the part of fhe employees. Conmsioii was created on accoimt of inactior., neslisence or carelessness ofthe ofEcials, ifaav. Havina regard to the facts situation of the case. when the petitioners have ah-eady utilized the money for up-keep oftheir faniilies, it would not be proper to direct recoven' of the aniount which has been paid to the oetitioners. Even ofiiem'ise, recoven'' orders have been passed without followmg the basic priaciples of natural jiistice as no opportuniU' of hearing was afforded to the oetitioners before the impusned orders were passed. For the reasons mentioned hereinabove, the petition is allowed. The mpugied orders dated 31.3.2006 (Aimexure P/l), 30.05.2006 (Annexwe P/2) and 07.06.2006 (Amiex-ure P/3) are quashed. No order asto costs. Sd/- Satish K. Agnihotri Judge A-mit J>