I ^ 1 c^^. BEEQRE THE ^HONSIiE T-IIGB ©Ot3;RTQF CHHA'PTISGARH AT BILASPUR WRIT PETITION ( S) N0.sWOF 2009 PETITIQNERS ^ / i'V .Y^v/ ^t^ /^^ ^/^M^ /fS^ .-<;?••y ^ ^ j?. ^^ 1. Arvind Kymar Sidar S/o Shri Thakur Ram Sidar, aged about 40 years, R/o Village- Krishnapur, Post- Gorkha, Tahsil & District Ftaigarh (C.G.); 2. Sundar Lal S/o Late Shri Parse Lat ^Toppo, aged about 41 years, R/o Village- Gov'erdhanpur, Post- 'BiEui-3adar,^'Eahsili& District Raigarh :-V'..a(©.G.).'1.:.^^ • ! RESPONDENTS -:- -te .State- of ;©»fetti§gai-htliraugh?- 'The Secretary, Schopl Edueatipn Department, D.K.S. [Bhavan, Raipur (C.G.)...' :, .•:'.1 •:. -: l'r'::'. f f^s"»^ ? B^9^A" M':-*fi-^^!A IC< 2.r The Gollector, Raigarh, Disfriet- Raigarh-'(C:G.):.""'-:::i '• '•1'':1 ::''.":- 3. District Education Offieer, Education Dep,artment, Raigarh, Distitct- Raigarh.fC.G.). ' WRTT PETITIONUNBBR.ARTIGI^226jQKTBEeONSTITiUTI©N.OFl r;;':l :•:.,!-ia1;;^11.':],, INDIA FOR ISSUENCE OFWSSTOS^KrES, ORE)ER OR ORiDERS. DIRECTlDNORDIRE©®e)NS?<3I®EMTM&lgACTSANia: ; i CIReUMDTftN©Eg,QE/I'HE,£;ASE. 1) -PAICTICUIAKS 10F'' E^E'I^©NE^:-.':;,.^|- -H3Lfi--T^eti±1.0EUerSL^aan..3^;rvt~l^nq^ Q+ tl3^1.CLF^c;T'>i=>^+-n7-a •rS^ci^^ia HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WRTTPETmONfS') No. 5106_of2SW PETmONER RESPONDENTS : Arvind Kumar 8idar&; anolfaer. VERSUS State ofCMiattisgarii & Otfaers. WRET PETmON UNDER ARTICLE 226 OFTHE CONStTTUTION OF INDIA SB: Hua'Ue ShriSatlshIC.Aenfliotel.J. Present: ShriS.K.Tiwari.Advocateforttepetitioner. Shri N.N.Roy, Panel Lawyer fwfhe State/resp<mdents. ORDER(ORAD (Passed(Mi09m^^of NovenAer, By this petiticai, tiie petitionera pray Sw a direetion to tiie resptmdent autfaOTiti^ for grant ofaiFears ofregular pay seale which was wiflidTawn by order dated 4'1' October, 1997 (Atmexure P/3). The indisputable &cts, in nirtshell, aie Ifaat Ae petitioners were appomted on contingency basis oa Ihe post ofPeon by orderdated 04 October, 1989 (Annexure P/l). Thaeafter, by order dated 23"i ManA I994and 15al Etecember, 1993 (Annexure P/2 OoUy.) respeetively, <fae petitiQnerswere ermted regular pay scale. However; the satBe was wiftftawn by order dated 4 October, 1997 (Aimemre P/3) wifliout afforffing an opportunity of hearing to flie petitionws. Being aggieved, similarly sitoated pers<Mis {u-eferred a writ petition beforelfae Hi^i Court ofMadhya Pradrth. fathe iDeamdale, the respondait No. 2 "ride order dated Sf Noveaaber, 2004 (Annexur®P/4) g-aitfed i^ular pay scale to the petitionas without granting arrears of salary for fhe peribd tiie benefit of wg»lar pay scale was wiflidrawn. ^ 3. Shri Tiwari, leamed counsel appearing for flie petitioners subnuts tiiat the identical question came up for considetation before tius Court m Sant Kumcsr Others v. State of Chhattssgarh & Others^ whieh was decided on 18tt'January,3006. 4. Leamed coumel appearfflg for the parties suhmit that tiie issue iavolved in tiie present case is squarely eova'ed by Ifae judgmeHt dated 18^ January, 2006passedby^sCQUrtmiS'anfA'u»iarf.?iyra/and'ttieju<^mentdated 2'?<h Oetober, 2009 in^Ram Kumar Sahu v. State cf Mcu&ya Pradesh & •^•Qthers1.-.^ ' -— '' ~.- 1 . . — 5. ; I have heard leamed counsel appearing fhr ttieiparties, perused the pleadings and documents appended Ifaereto. 6. The issue involved in the case is fliat the petitioners were granted regula" pay scaleway baek and without afFording any ofqxxrtunity offaearing to the petitioners; fhe same has been withdrawn. In Scmt Kwmar (supra), while dealing with the ideirtieal situatimi and facts oflfae case. tias Cburt observed as iinder: , . "5. Infhe facts oftiiepTesentcase^tfaepetitioners have beeu availaig regular pay scafes ftoia yanous dates tiU the uapugped order datext 3.8.2000 (Atmesa.ire P/t) was passed. Tlie imRagned wd6r ccwild not have been passed wifhout|issuingsp® showcausenc^e(wvritlMrtgtymgti^petiti^^ a hearing in the matter. Leamed counsel ^.the respondent submits that the enguiicxjliag; ;B||g!a(^ been initiated aad pen<Bi% enquuy ^inq^ ord^Havefceenpassed.TKeimpugn^cjrt^g]'^^ wi&dvilctmsequences.Smceteiaipugiwd^ wefe passed befcr®conclusion of encluax and without aShrding ths petitioneis a hearu^ ,1he impugned brders are tead and ilwalid. ' 6. Fca- Ifae reasons stated sbove atid!ia view ofthe deeision ofths Siipreme Gourt in ease|<»£®iagwan Shukla ^upra), ti»e petituMi is altowed ai^ the L%E'lo.;2125'ojE20()2"1^'; z'W.I>.-(S)No.l^of2005 :'c. impugned orders are quashed. The petfti<»eTS are entMed t<yregular(^&alesaxwdui^fi<^ date, the same have been witiidrawn by the iinpugited QrdHS. No order asto eosts." 7. The State Oovermnent have taken fte aferesaid matter to the Supreme Coiirtby way ofSpecial Leave Petition. The Supreme Courtdisnussed tfae S.L.P.(C) No. 17122 of 2006 (State of Chhattisgarh & Others v. Sant Kumar & Others), upholding ^ae decision passed tey this Court in &»(• Kumcir(sttprq)oa9'^0<Sciber,'2Q06. ^ 8. With regwd to Ihe issue ofrecovwy ofamount pad to tiieenyloyee. Ifae Hon'ble Supreme Court, in SyedAbdul Qadir andothersv. StatecfBihar and other^, havmg eonsidered aU •the decisions rendered earlier m Sahib Ram v. State ofHarycaw, SryamBabuVermav. Union ofl/sdia, Ifnion cf Indiav. M. Bhaskar, V. Oangaram v. Director, Col. BJ.AMwra^Retd.) v. Gcvt. of Indw. Purushottctm Lal Das v. State ofBihw, Punfab National Bankv. Manj'eet Singh and BiharSEB y. BijeyBaheubir, observed .as under: "S7. This Court, ui a catena <rf' deeiaons has <;, grantedjrfief agaimt reeoN^y of ew^ pajmetf 1 QfeniohMnedts/altowaaces if(^ 1toe exe^s amoutrt •«B was wst paui bn aeeoimt sf^iy mi^i^t^enitiBt^^ ^ or firaud ontlie part oflheBmployee, aitf (K) i£SU(A fr excess payment y^ tnaate by the en^pleyer ;^^^^^i , applya®a wn»g principle «f <^culatn% t^^ pax/allowance or 011 jthe basis of a paiffiailar ; ; uiterpretatfon of ryle/ordei, 'whieh is sijibsequenfly i;; fbundto be emmeous. ' s SS.Thereliefa^instTecoiveiyisgraHtaibycourts ^ Bot because afan^n^M^8mp^^es,feutin"t equity, exereisingJudicialdiscreti<Mi'to;tsli®we,they ^i employee &om the liards}ap tliat wjll tee caus^ 3".;- |'^ - recovery is ordered. But, if in a gyeg ease^ tt» i prov^ thatth»aig)loy^.fiad;|kiao'mle<^^ffi^ i: ; payiment Te<»ivedwasme^essofw3ia^w^due<M'...*i wrongly paid, w m <Mse v»i»^1Iteei'Ka|ls'Gt|^ete(l , j oreorrectedwithmaA^tiffleof'WR»g'paytiaw^»^^^ tiifi nuttertteing.m •the'lEeaSm <ri C2009)3SCC475 5L 9. courts may, on die ftcte and circumstances ofany partieiito case, ^iM^ reco1 iy of tlie anKWMtt paid in excess. SoeSahib Rcsn v. State.ofHcayeiiM, . Shyam Babu Verma''v. Unton ofln3itf,ywwtvf India v. M. Shaskar, V. Gangaram v. State cfl Bihar, Pt gab ttionalScmkKMmgeetSin^iaa& BiharSES y. Bgay Bahadur. , 59. Undoubtedly, tite excess acnount tiiat has beeaa paid to the appeliaitf teaAers <^ aot be<;ause of any n-usrepresmtstion or fiaud cai theutparf mdthe aCTeUat^alsolladnQ^rio'Wte^e^fh^ that was being paid te» them was n»rethaa what llieywere entitfed to. ft vwuld'not be &utc'ft»l^<;r to mention here that Vbe Einanoe DepaitoeBt had, m its countCT-afHdavit, admtttedBiatit ^^ a bona fide mistake on flteir part. The exfie^ payment made was the result 6fwrong mt^pretafion ofthe Rule fhat was applicable to Aem, forwhiA the aiyellauts canno't be toeld resix>nsible. 'Ratfaei^ •tiiei, whole con&si(Mi was because of inaetio^ negligence aad iearelessa»ss of tfae^ officials concemed of the Ooveiament of Bihar. Leamed eounsel appeaiing on feehalf wf tfae sppensast •teachers : suhnMtted; that m^Qn|%,; itf' ;the betieficiaries have either refeed w are <at?ttie.;vetas& of it. Keqimg i& view tlie jiecid&r fecy,;' d° circumstaaces of1he<ase AIiandandtoavouia^: hardshy to Ae appellanfteachei^,^ view fhat no recoveey ofthe amoumt •diBt;I»sbeea' paid in excess to tiie ajyellantteacfaets made." : •-^ . .'•-• . ! ..-- '. For the reasons stated heremabove, fhe petiti<a is allowed. The petitioners are entitledto arreMs rfregularpay scale for the period itwaswilfai&awn vide order dated 4th October, 1997 tiUitwasirest<a'edwde order datai 6* November, 2004. No order asto eosts. 2-. Sd/- Satish K. Agnihotri Judge Anut