r^ '•- A^ S; A '"i 7,y^^^sl s ^' *a-' ' C-. ^ Orf--"X— ?<< :^ a^ aTI®BQBPBaAHieaCOUKFOF C^HAETOSQAIU^C BHASPUR WRITleBtITMaSJSilMQ.<33A^-QtaQll PETITIOWER ^•^y^^ ^1^^'^ ':5--^"""'^ ^e^^e^ R^aPQSDEaSTS Bs.s^nt kuroar Sbarroa S/p late Puran. pcaaad, sbaCTtta aged abou.t Q3 years R/o Village and post - Arjz.inda, Dwtt-Dwg (Cbti.attasgarh) VERSUS /' Secretary Bducation Departiaeul. D.K.S. Bbawan,, G.E. Road, Raipur (C.G.) District Educatiox), Officer, Durg District- Diu-g (C.G.) 3. Block Education Guaderdebi, Distt. Ourg (C.G. 4. Divisioiial Joint, Director, Treasiuy, Accounts and Peasion Department, Raipur (C.G.) /'^•-^ WRIT PBTITION UNDJER AR'nCLB 226 OF CQB^TITU'nOS QE UtDIA HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR (Hon. Mr. Justice Pritinker Diwaker) Writ Petition (S) No. 3367 of 2011 PETITIONER RESPONDENTS VERSUS Basant Kumar Sharma State of Chhattisgarh and others Shri Vivek Sharma, counsel for the petitioner. Shri Chandresh Shrivastava PL for the respondents. WRIT PETITIONS UNDER ARTICLE 226/227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA ORDER (14.12.2011) Challenge in this petition is to the order dated 1.2.2011 (Annexure P-1) passed by respondent No.3 herein directing to recover an amount of Rs. 27,669 paid to the petitioner towards arrears of second time pay up-gradation granted to him, from 19.4.1999 to 28.2.2006. 2. Facts of the case in brief are that the petitioner, who at the relevant time was working as Head Master in the School Education Department, retired from service on 31.1.2011. His further case is that all G{ a sudden recovery of Rs. 27, 669 paid to him towards the arrears of second time pay up-gradation after completion of 24 years of service, is sought to be made from him. 3. Counsel for the petitioner submits that after retirement of the petitioner from service, the respondents are seeking to make the recovery of the excess amount paid to the petitioner which undisputedly has not been received by him by way of misrepresentation or fraud on his part rather it was on account of voluntary action of the respondents/authorities and thus the recovery sought for by fhe respondents cannot be made without affording an opportunity of hearing to him. According to him, the petitioner is a retired employee and thus the sudden recovery being sought from him would be too "SE, i?f ^. 1; j t«is3?Sfe s '<i&S.-"~1 /, !v ^y '"'^.; ''^. rf.^ ^l^tt' ^f O —o harsh as the excess amount received by him might have been spent in his day to day needs. He submits that the issue as to whether recovery of the excess payment for no fault of the employee can be made without complying with the principle of natural justice is no longer res integra and the same has been settled by the Supreme Court in various cases including the case in the matter of Syed Abdul Qadir and others v. State of Bihar and others reported in (2009) 3 SCC 475 and relying on that judgment various orders have been passed by this Court directing refund of the excess amount if any recovered from the employees. 4. Counsel for the respondents submits that as the petitioner was not entitled for the excess amount paid to him, respondents are justified in making recovery of the same. He however fairly submits that no opportunity of hearing was granted to the petitioner before passing the impugned order and that there was no misrepresentation or fraud on the part of the petitioner as a result of which any excess amount was paid to him. 5. In view of the foregoing factual and legal position, the order impugned dated 1.2.2011 (Annexure P-1) directing recovery of excess payment made to him is quashed. 6. Counsel for the petitioner submits that despite an interim order dated 29.6.201.1, the respondents have not paid any amount to the petitioner and this act of the respondents is nothing but an outright contempt of Court. Counsel for the respondents however submits that when the order impugned itself is quashed, the petitioner would be paid all his dues as expeditiously as possible. 7. ^ Accordingly, the petition is allowed. It is expected that the respondents would clear all the dues of the petitionej^aHhe earliest. Sd/- Pritinker Diwaker Judge