H3QH GQURT $F JUBK§ATURE AT BILA$PUR QHHATTIS§3ARH QQRAM: HQN’BLE sHRu 5R, NAYAK; c: g as: HQN’gLE sHRI QR. QEsHMukg-é, .J. WRH PETITIQN NQ.23‘!1 QF 1999 PgTHmNERS: 1, State ef Madhya Pg'adesh, through ”the Secrefary, Govemmen’t of MP. Department of Archaeology, Mamraaya. BHCPAL. 2. Director, Department of Archaeelogy, and Museum, Governmeni‘ of MP, BHOPAL. Deputy Director, Qffice 0f Archaeoiogy and Museums, Near Circuit House, RAIPUR. m vemus RESFQNDENTS: 1 . Ram Nath Singh Rajput, aged 44 years Son of Late Bhagwan Das Rajput, at present posted as Accountant in the office of Dy. Director. Archaeological Department, Raipur, R/o Raja Talab RAIPUR. MP. State Administrative Tribunal, thrcttgh its Regie’trer, at JgkBALPUR. Preeerlt: Shri Praehent Mishra, learned Additicnal Advocate General fer the State/petitioners. None for the respondents. (oRAL ORDER) (Passed on 215‘ Aprii, 2095) The following arder cf the Ceurt was passed by $.R. Nayek, Qd, This writ petitien tiled under Article 227 ef the Qcnstitutien ef indie is directed againet the Order dated 17-Q2~1999 at the MP. State Administrative Tribunei, Raipur Bench (for short “the Tribunal") paesed in QA. N0. 487/98, i 2. When ihe Director, Department 0f Archaeolagy and Museum, Government 0f M.P., the second petitioner herein sought to recover a sum of Rs. 45,875.50 from the first respendent —- empioyee on. the ground that his pey~scaie was wrengiy fixed and excess amount wee made, the first respendent iiieci QA. Ne. 48?I98 before the Tribunai calling in question the validity of the action of the second petitioner. The 0A. was contested by the oetitioners herein by friing statement of objections. in the statement ‘of obieetions, it was contended that the first respondent himeeif was looking after the amounts work in the department and he himself fixed his peymscale according te the reeommendations of various Pay Commissiens. When the matter stood thus, the audit party which audited the accounts ef the department found that the pey-ecale of the first respondent had been wrongly fixed and excess payment was made to a tune of Rs. 52,866 Land, therefore, the department was justified in taking steps to recover the excess payment made to the first respondent. 3. The Tribunal having appreciated the rive! contentions of the parties and aiso the documents placed before it come to the conoiusion, as could be seen from paree t5 and 16 of the order, that the excess payment was made to the first respondent by wrong fixation of his pay-scale. Nevertheless, the Tribunal allowed the (1A. on the ground that the tixetion of pey—soale of the hrst respondent herein has had approve! of the second petitioner herein. Henoe, this writ petition by the aggrieved $tete —- Authorities. 4. We have heard Shri Preshant Mishra, learned Additional Advocate General who appeared for the petitioners/State Authorities. When the ease was taken up for final hearing, none appeared nor any representation was made on behaif of the first respondent though the first respondent wa$ $erved with nothse and reprewnted by a gounsel. This writ petition is 0f the year 199$. There is no justification to defer ihe‘ hearing ef the writ petition. in that View cat the matter, we heard the writ petitieh tinaiiy, 5) Having heard learned Additionai Advocate General fer the $tate Authcrities and having perused the materials piaced before the Ceurt and, particulariy, the fmdings reeertted by the Ttibttnai itself, we are of the eeneidered eeinien that the Tribune! hae committed a Serious error in atlowing the 0A. tiled by the tiret reependent. The Tribunal iteetf in mere then ene piece in ite erder has recerdeol a specifie hnding that there was a wreng fixation 0f ,eay-scale of the first reepondent and excees payment wee made te him. if that is the established fact, simply because, sueh wrong ttxatien has had an appreval of the second petitioner, that ctrcumstanee itself would nevet be a justification t0 atlow the first respenctent to make unlawful gain at the cost and peri! of the State interest. The hrst respondent is duty-bound to repay the excess amount received by him on aecount ef wrong fixation of pay-scale in pursuanee of the reeommendations made by the various Pay Commissions. The teason given by the Tribunal to allow the application is, in our considered opinion, perverse and irrational. 6. in the resutt and for the foregoing reasons, we allow the writ petition and set aside the impugned order of the Tribune! and dismiss 0A. No. 487/98 tiled by the first respondent herein. in the facts and oircumstanoes of the ease, the parties shall bear their respective costs ‘ f/JL/J/g‘t" \/ Sdl- Chief Justice