^ HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH: BILASPUR WritPeUtion (S) No. 4350 of 2008 \ Petitioner Roop Dhar Pradhan, S/o. Shri Neelkanth Pradhan, aged about 62 years, R/o. Village Mohgaon, P.0. Bhagat Deori, Retired Developmert Extension Officer, Janpad panchayat—Saraipaii, Distt. Mahasamund, Chhattisgarh. ResBondents Versus 1) State of Chhattisgarh, through Secretary, Departmentof Panchayat & Social Welfare, D.K.S. Bhawan, Mantralaya, Raipur, Chhattisgarh. 2) Joint Director, Treasury Accountant and Pension, Raipur, Oistrict Raipur, Chhattisgarh. 3) Chief Executive Officer, Janpad Panchayat Saraipali, Dfstt. Mahasamund, Chhattisgarh. 4) Accountant General, Through - Registrar, Yeliow Building, Penston Bada, Raipur, Chhattisgarh. (Writ Petition under Article 226/227 ofthe Constitution of india.) Singte Bench : Hon'ble Mr. Satish K. Agnihotri, J. Present: Shri Pankaj Shrivastava, counselforthepetitioner. Smt. Smita Ghai, Panel Lawyer for the State. Shri R. Pradhan, counsel for the respondent No.4 ORALORDER (Passed on 8th day of August, 2008) With the consent oi learned counsei for the parties, the petition is heard finaiiy. 2) Learned counset appearing for the petitioner submits that the impugned order dated 17-10-2007 (Annexure P/1) was passed without affordjng any opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. He further submits that the Hon'ble SuDreme Court in a catena of decisions held that if a payment has been made for no fault of the employee, the same is not recoverable. ^^ ^ J 3) The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Sahib Ram Vs. State of Haryana and others in para 5 held as under: "5. However, it is not on account of any misrepresentation mads by the appe!!ant that the benefit of higher pay scate was given to him but by wrong construction made by the Principal for which the appellantcannotbe hetel to be at fault. Under the circumstances, the amount paid tili date may not be recovered from the appetiant." (3f •••• 4) The Supreme Court in the case of P. Tulsidas and others v. Government of A.P. and others'i, observed that the benefit accrued eariier by way of grant of higher pay or revised pay, cannot be taken away as the same is violative of Articie 14 sind 16 of the Constitution of India being arbifrary, unreasonable and expropriatory. 5) This Court in the case of Vidyadhar Tiwari Vs. State of Chhattisgarh & others he!d that for the excess payment, if any, made to the petitioner, he was notat fault and the amount received by him might have been ussd by adjusting himseifaccordingly treating the same as his salary. At this stage, directing recovery of the alleged excess amount from the pensionary benefits ofthe petitioner will not be just and proper. 6) ln view of the foregoing reasons impugned order dated 17-10-2007 (Annexure P/1) is hereby quashed and the petition is allowed to that extent. 7) Leamed counsei further submits that in regard to grant of pensionary benefrts, thereafter this case may be referred to the Pension Commtttee where the petitioner wiit submit reply and the case may be decided by the said High Power Committee, in accordance with iaw. 8) This Court, in the matter of W.P.No.4642/2004 (Baijnath Mandal Vs. The State of Chhattisgarh & others) and other connected matters, directed the Committee to considet the matter of retiral dues as the disputed question of facts were involved. The Committee was constituted by the State Govemment, pursuant to the order dated 19-06-2U36 passed in W.P.No.1961/2006 (Smt. Keja Bai Chandrakar Vs. State Govemmentof Chhattisgarh and others), and order dated 13-3-2008 passed in M.C.C. 1 1995 Supp (1) SCC 20 2A!R2003SC43 3 2006 (1) MPHT 105 (CG) Gowri No. 105 of 2008 (State of Chhattisgarh and others Vs. Baijnath Mandat and another). 9) This petition is accordingly disposed of in the same torms i.e., the office of the Advocate General is directed to send the case to the Committee, within a period of 15 days frorn the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Thereafter, the Committee shatl issue notice to the petitloner and officers concerned within a further period of 15 days. 10) The petitioner is at liberty to submit a detailed reply to the impugned notices as stated above within a period of four weeks and in tum the Comm'rttee shatt take decision and pass appropriate order, in accordance with taw, on its own merits asexpeditiously as ppssible, preferably within a pe.riod of eight weeks from the date of receipt of repty offce petitioner. 11) The petitioner shailsupply one comptete set of the petition to the State counsel as als6 to the counsel for Accountant Generai for transferring the same tothe Committee. Sd/- SatishK.Agnihotri - Judge