ro-CTT ^ \^]^ IN THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR BB W. P. (S) No. 3_^i1 of 2010 PETITIONER "% ^\? ^f^^y ^y^t' <^ .^?"' ^^y' ^*y.^ ^ ^ ,-r2- ^ ^-.- ^?^"" ^ RESPONDENTS Harish Chandra Dubey, aged about 37 years, S/o Late Shri &anesh Prasad Dubey, Working as ,Assistant Grade-III, R/o Bangalipara, &a\\, No. 3, Sarkanda, Bilaspur {C.G.} VERSUS :1.f State of Chhattisgarh Through : The Secretary School Education Department, D.K.S. . . Bhawan Raipur (C.&.) ^' 2. Principal, &overnment S.B.S. Higher Secondary , School Jairamnagar, Tahsil Masturi, bistt. Bilaspur {C.G.} r"" 3. bistrict Treasury, Collectorate Campus, Bilspur Tahsil <& Bilaspur (C.&.) (^^u^ WRIT PETITION UNbER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INblA. 3TI^T'^T^FTW ^T^TW^T'^lN? *11*1CTI ^l^t^ "S^ ^Wv\^, ^V\w\s, ^^iy^ ^^..M§).M.:..^.h^..•^200 3TI^IT?5W (^3^T) '^TTWTrf^T 3^T SB ; h'on'bie Shrii^anindra ffiohanShnvasteva,A tliat 26°Q?°2010 Shri Sameer Behar, co< Shri Ajit Singi-i, Panej L^ Short issue arising for cjs is aggrieved by order dateu' 2| has been recovered on the g^ Detiuoner. Learned counsei for th< increments v^ere paid to hlm a| recovery has been taken and] hearing. He further submits been paid. Thereafter, if paym^nt misrepresentation on his p< respondent authorities, the sarr| On the other hand, that according to the condition^ petitioner 'vvas entitied to examination. This aspect wa^ therefore by rnistake incremenls years before passing the detected, recove?y has been it is trite that payment uniess it is found that the san cannot be jgnored that the pet chl^f<r1<41-l "RTR^ff ^* f^t <F*l<^i< ^3tf?R3T^5T insei for the petiuoner. |vvyer for the State. )nsiaeration in this peution Is that the petjtioner p/06/2004 by which an amount of Rs.11,228/- ^'ound that excess payrnent was made to the petitloner submits that afier his appointrfjerst, id after about 6 years, the impugned action of jthat too by not giving him any opportunity of if he was not entitied, he ougnt not to have has been made to hirn without any ft-aud or rt, cn account of voiuntary action of the ke cannot be recovered. of ieamed counsel for respondents Is incorporated in the order of appointrnent, the jncrements oniy after passing the 'typing ignored at the time of releasing salary and i^s were aiso given to the petitioner for about 3 exarnination and when this mistake was subhnission typ|ig mbQ8e. ^nce made nomiaiiy could not be recovered ^e is a resuit of fraud / mjsrepresentation. it titioner is a iow paid empjoyee. There is no l:'s8N^. N -•^y"""f ^ ^.-....'^^HC—78 ;~-ss^^.-'."^' <3TT^T ^T'f^fN? TT8TT 3TR^Y $i7^t^' ^mw^ NWdi W*(ic?» 's^ r^ww^, 8>til<-(<i<o, [®i<ni<!-i^< 3^...:t^>6)..^o...^5..li./.!.?.•^200^ ^?T TT5W ('^rf^^T) i^TW ^rf^T 3TT^T -^- materiai to shovv that petitioner c< that the petitioner was not entitied him for 3 years and it wouid b< petitioner, who is a iow paid empk action has been taken without afi petitioner. Taking cumuiative view on action of recovery a'ated 25/06/S recovered as excess payment s| however, made ciear that in so far shali not be disturbed. in vievy ofthe foregoing, the| o|mmitled any fraud. Therefore, assumjng |6 increments, the same h-as been paiu to inequitabie to rnake recovery frorn the ^yee. it is aiso to be noted that Impugned yording any opportunity of hearing to the t^e aforesaid drcurnstances, the impugned p04 is deciared lliegal and the amount s|iali be refunded to the petitioner. it is as fixation of pay is concerrsed, the sarne Ipetition is aiiowed. ^i^fd^li 'HR^if ^ 'fex^ <f^i^i< ^^tRw^n^r Sd/- Manindra Mohan Shrivastava Judge