^ ^- \ ^^ ^.K^.^^^ ^ ^y^f^M SI-SOLE.BfcN^ IN THE HON»BLEHIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR w.p.tsiNo. ^'^% /aaee" aoo3 t PETITIONER / ^ ^ ^- ?} ..."< n^°S^ %M>'' ..^"'^%w^' »-L\,.^- ..•"" .w^ Miss. Joljina Toppo ..^ RESPONDENTS D/o Late Kalyan Toppo About 64 years, Retired Principal, R/o Kelo Vihar Colony, Raigarh, Distt.- Raigarh (C.G.) VERSUS 1. 2. 4. WRIT PBTITION UNDER State of Chhattisgarh Through: The Secretary, School Education Department, D.K.S. Bhawan Raipur (C.G.) The Joint Director Treasury Accountant and Pension, Bilaspur, Distt.- Bilaspur (C.G.) District Education Officer, Raigarh, Distt.- Raigarh (C.G.) Principal, Govt. Higher Secondary School Tetla, Block - Pusore, Distt.- Raigarh (C.G. ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA FOR ISSUANCE OF WRIT IN NATURE OF MANDAMUS CERTIORARY OR^NY OTHER WRIT OF LIKE NATURE ETC. HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGH AT BILASPUR PETITIONER (Hon. Mr. Justice Pritinker Diwaker) Writ Petrtion (S) No.2338 of 2009 Miss. Joljjna Toppo VERSUS RESPONDENTS The State of C.G. & others. Shri D.R. Patel, counsel for the petitioner. Shri Y.S. Thakur, Dy. A.G. and Vivek Sharma PL for the respondents /State. WRIT PETSTION UNDER ARTICLE 226/227 OF THE CONSTITUT10N OF INDIA ORDER (10.08.2009) in the instant petition the petjtioner is seeking the following reiief(s): tl10(i) That it is therefore prayed that this Hon'ble Courf may kindiy be pleased to call forthe entlre records ofthe petitioner case.. (ii) That it is therefore, prayed that this Hon'ble Court msy kindly be pleased to set- aside/quashed the order dated 7.3.2009 and further kindly be directed the order to the respondents to not deduct the amount of Rs. 1,70,580/- from the petitioner. (iii) That 'it is therefore prayed that this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pfeased to direct the respondents to pay recovered amount with 6% interest to the petitioner. (iv) Any other relief, which may be deemed, fit by this Hon'ble Court just and proper in the facts and circumstances of the .^>'<- ff f"'^;;" /y "^. —2.— case may aiso be provided in favour of the petitioner." 2. Brief facts of the case are that the petitioner was an employee of School Education Department who retired from the post of Principai on 31.3.2008. By the order impugned dated 7.3.2009 recovery of Rs. 1,70.580/- to be effected from the petitioner has been ordered by respondent No.2. 3. Contention of the petitioner is that the order impugned regarding recovery has been passed without giving any opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and without disclosing the fact as to on what basis the recovery is sought to be made. He submits that it has wrongly been mentioned in the order impugned that the petitioner was given due opportunity of hearing in accordance with law. He placed reliance on the dedsions of the Supreme Court in the matter of Sahib Ram Vs. State of Harvana & others1 & in the matter of Purshottam Lal Das & others Vs. State of Bihar & others2. In these two decisions it has been held by the Supreme Court that if the excess payment is made due to the wrong construction of relevant order by the authority concerned without any misrepresentation on the part of the employee, no recovery can be made from the employee and if recovery is already made, it js liable tobe restrained. 4. Counsel for the respondents/State submits that State has every right to recover the excess payment as per rule 65 of the Chhattisgarh Civil Services Pensions Rules, 1976. He submits that the petitioner has not produced any material to show that no notice was given to him prior to passing of the impugned order of recovery sought to be made from him. 11995Supp.(l)SCC18 2(2006)11SCC492 ^.-.^ &.. ' t :^ -3- 5. Heard counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record and the judgments of the Supreme Court cited above. 6. In view of above factual scenario and the law laid down by the Apex Court, the instant petition deserves to succeed and the order impugned dated 7.3.2009 (Annexure P-3) regarding recovery of Rs. 1,70,580/- is liable to be set aside. 7. The result is that the petition is allowed and the order impugned is set aside. If the deduction has already been made from the pension of the petitioner, the same shall be payable to him with interest at the rate of 6 per cent per annum. Needless to say that the respondents can always take the recourse to Rule 65 of the Chhattisgarh Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1976 if so advised in accordance with law after following basic principtes of natural justice. 8. Resultantly, petition succeeds. Sd/- Pritinker Diwaker Judge ^