17V W3" BEFORE THE STATE ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL BENCH ‘RAIPUR (4:56?/§ ) 33’W o.A.N0. 3p OF 2001 Shri.‘ NPIYadaV ,S/o— Shri Aghnuram Yadav , aged about 44 years, Working as Asst Teacher , Bal Ashram , Pathalgaon, PTO: Pathalgaon , Distt : Jashpur, (Chhattisgarh). I’ETITIONERS Shri. IR. Ya‘daV, S/o — Shri Girdhariram Yadav, aged about 40 years , Working as Asstr Teacher ,Boys Primary School , Pathalgaon, Distt : Jashpur,( Chhattisgarh). Shri. N.Pr Ambast, S/o- basudev Pr. Ambast, aged about 44 years, Working as Asst. Teacher , Govt Higher Secondary School, Pathalgaon, _ Distt: Jashpur, ( Chhattisgarh). 4, Smti Indira Tiwari, D/o, Kashi Pri Dubey, aged about 40 years, Working as Asst Teacher, Girls Primary School, Pathalgaon, Distt: Jashpur, (Chhattisgarh), 5. Shri. Bhimsen Swarnkar, S/o. Bodhram Swarnkar, aged about 38 years , Working as Asst, Teacher, Bal Ashram , Pathalgaon, Distt: Jashpur, (Chhattisgarh), Versus 1. State of ChhattiSgarh, Through Secretary Department of Tribal Development, Chhattisgarh, 2. Commissioner Department of Tribal Development , Chhattisgarh, Raipur. RESPONDENTS w c M)? Asst. Commissioner, Department of {A - Tribal Welfare, Jashpur District, Jashpur, ( Chhattisgarh). 4. Collector, J'ashpur , Chhattisgarh, 5. Principal, Government Higher Secondary School , Pathal gaon. PPLICATION UNDER SECTION 19 OF THE ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNALS ACT 2 l\ A ; HIGH SQigRT OF QHHATT§S€3$§RH : EELA§§3€£E Singk 3ench: Hon’b!a Shri Manindm Mchan Shriva3‘iaya, “é Writ Pemém g5; Ma.g55yg%$ PETITEQNERS: N. P, Yaiiav and Others Versus Sate of Chhattisgai‘h and otheys RE$$QE¥§§EPH Fmmm: $hri $hashai1k Thakur, counse‘ ici’ the pewgnem Shri Sati$h Gama, Govt. Advocate for fhe State/respencients. QRAL Q R E3 E R (Pasged an 08m Apru, 2010) Qy +his petition petitione 3 have chaHenged {He 0 tier t‘ated m-m mam (Annexure A4) pas3ed by the Prmmpai, Gcvt. Higher $ecendaiy $chws, Pa‘é‘haigzaan. {2) Case of the pe‘imaners as 'that thev were appomteti as Dewm‘y Te ker in €he yea! 1986-87 after due aamc‘mn by xhe $eiectmn Board an a fmeci bamry 3f F’s 309/» ‘or a §es40d {if we yaar with the cow mm hai‘ wan comptetmn :Df ane yea: khey Wm b6 gxameti ragwar pay In the year-i994 heave :3 were appeméed m the Tebm Departmeet by Lhe Gmecém {3mg cm a ‘eguia my ewe 5cm the mmzé eate e? appenémem. The A . a ‘3 emcee”, “eeea‘kmem § {f “shed Eeuea$§0m appi'eaehee he Tebmh’ e‘a3m3ng mat may were eEee er‘HLee! i‘o b‘ “’vm regaear gay sceze fmm the we: as daie e§ amem’imemi The§r peemn ‘ e iwm? w tue . m i x T e e e§ we) ihkm ap is ”we Supreme Fem “y w, Siete em the S L . Jae a. G elemtssed Thetea ie me ,“Fegeiae emu“ weeer Tawa. Ne%fa:e partment peeeed ae order dated 24-02—1§$6 (Aw‘revme e3) far reg/mew 0f sa" nd raguiar saiavy t0 a}! the Assistant Teamers frorr‘ their mmal date of appomtment Vwie ardet daLed O3 1G 26C)? {Anaexure A e) the Prmmpal evt. H:ghe‘: $ecendav Schooe, Patnalgaen am passed an erder for grant of fun and regu!ar Salary ta the neiitioners from the date eftheit initEa! appeiniment. Hewever, 5am? en, en acceum of abjectien ra'sed dering audit Aesisrart emn‘iesioner Tribai Deveiopment v'im his ie1+er dated 01 O1 2001 (Annexme A—7) uxrected the Pnncma! 0f the Srhoa! for taking immedlage autwn and recovery of exeess amen? Dare ro rhe petmoee ;\ whereupon impughed crder deter! 13-01 remvery wa$ iSSUed. ~2001 (Annexzw Am 1) dig-ecéing arder (3) of Submis3ion recavery was c>f £eamed passed cgunsei withsut fer effarding the; petitiener$ eppcrtuniw is thaf af hearmg tha impugneé £0 the petitianers a3 the impugned crder invaived averse civil awed hardShip to”A$$isiant Te canswuences and? aahws, if ougm ia ph’nciples c2? Lnatu“ " ‘ ' veid ab fnitfo, It i$ further being arguaci in vialai‘ion that the 0f {Annexure to $how that A3) order was fer ah mymem Guts attempts Of‘fuH with and open regular ey$s and miary there paSSeéy is nothing an $3-TOQGQQ on recard fhe 9et§tionem Ther as serious prejudice and respondents made such " fraud mayEd by tanca, recovery couid be grayed in r the petttieners is that eady it is net been a made. c Next centemz‘on ef 1eemec§ eubmitted payment ef that fun the and action regater of salary respondents was wheHy in impermis$§bie ase Where it under can the be 3a§d 5aw. that crder ef the Tribunei and the Supre restricting benefit tiowing frent the d in the year 1983-1934, is therefere, after (4) the Per ereei' centre, at the eubmission Tribunal in ef the ieamed case of couneei Mae’fsueenf tor the respendents is that v3. 3fate efMie‘. ét ‘l to Aseistent Teachers, whe were appeinte me Court for grant ef fuii and mega! as it amounteei t0 discrimination. cauneei fe It i3 teguler eaten] steers {Annexure A-3) and dismissai Yettu 0f the en’et $peeiat 56‘ ethere W{K Leave Aeeistent Co ‘ ‘ " ued an 24424936 by the cate ftom the date of their ted aniy ta these Aseistent 983k84. This ctrctnat wee tater en 1997 (Annexure Fi~ Teeehets, whe were appointed in the year t caneetieet vide another circuiar dated 10-07- erders were issued. Grant of fut! initiet detect appoi t) and tecevery ry te the petitionere tram their 10-2000 (Annexure A~ ese circumstenees, r om any illegattty. ' “ " ‘ wha‘ity impermtseibre. ntment Under vide th order dated O3- dees net euffer fr 6) wee ecovery was orderee whtch (5) i have eensidered rivet parties and perused the recerds. submissions matte by tearned counset fer the é? (6) befom A the pemsal Tribuna! of order by the dateci Officer—in—charge 22-11-2001 shows 6f the that case a that statement a fresh was; order made has, been is5ued for recavery 0f the amaum anti copy 0f kha same is being mam by the respandents. Howevet no such arder is an record, The crder was §n the watext of a query as to haw smh huge recovery couid be made in tump sum. Fmm the order at the Tribunal ptaced 6n record passed t granted in retief the case ta the ct (7) Madhukaht Assistant Teachers Yedtr {supra}. of scheot it Education is found that Departmeht the Tribune en the greunci that es the Assistant Teaehere of Trihat Department were granted benefit 0t regutat eatery in the pay scaie at R3545v950l-fr0m the tnitiat date of appointment the teashere ot Scheet Education Department were atse entitled t0 same berret’tt es te therefere betng given observed t0 teaehere that the of benefit Tribal 84 be Hariian given to Wetfare eii teachere Department. end they The sheutd Tribune! not he competied to approach the Tribunai tot simitar benefit individuetty Speciai Leave or ooliectiveiy‘ This order was chaiienged by the State by tiiing e Petition in the Supreme Ceurt whieh wee aiso dismissed by the Supreme Court Vide its order dated 03—01—1994 (Annexure A-A). This asoeot has not been dieputed by the respondents. From the order of the Tribunal or from the order ot the Supreme Court, it cannot be said that the benefit which was ditected to he conterred to aii the teachers of Schooi- Education Department wee'haeeci en the consideration that such benefit wee confined oniy to the teachers appointed in the year 1983—84. The reepondents of their own started interpreting the oro‘rere of the Tribunai anci the Supreme Court in their own way to restrict painted benefit of in toii the and year; reguiar 1983-1984‘ eatery From oniy the to those order Assistant of the Tribunai teachers, itseif, who it is were oiear ap that the Tribunei Weifare the Contention Department of petitionerssthat got the soaie of in Rs.545»950,’- View of those in the various orders passed. s of Tribei and Herigans beoinning. Therefore took into consideration that in the year 1937, teacher petitioners were also entitled to pay spate of R5545-g50i- fromthe beginning that the appears to he iustifiedr in sum and substanoe, though on the haeis teachere of Tribai Department got pay soaie of Rs.545-950f— from their initiei i Department, the petitioners, teachers of Tribai Departme benefit on the interpretation that the orders of the i f - action of the respondents is cieariy irrational, arbitrery enei sis-o orscrn‘nrnatory r. i _ ”or use date of appointment. benefit was extendeoi to the teachers of Schooi Education nt, were denied thie Tribunai and the Etuprerne tee in the $534984 The Court were appiicahie oniy to the teachers eppoin \Cl/ z§$ (5) Mareaver, §t is trite that ame excess payment has beam made, the Same ceuid mt be recavered unie5$ the same was an outcome 0f fraud Gr miSrepresentation 0r when it has been granted knawing fLmy that ét was mt at a” petmissible undar the law. La3tiy, the impugmed arder cannot be sustained in the eye of law fer the reaseh that it is: tn complete vietatien of priheipiee of heturat‘Metice. The same §s eccetdihgiy set aside. Recevery made fi'om the petitioners, tf any, shat! be refunded t0 them. (9) The petition is therefore aiiowed ta the extent indicated above. There shaii be no order as to costs. Sdl- Maningra Moha'n Shrivastava uudge v