;? ?PT?T 'Stvn w?r J^TT TP^r yf I I^T'-II* 3fTE-nr7UT, ^r - <iy^i! UJ)^/v/"''?,6 <'/'<;'/clj ^ ^ET - TRy 3TlT3?0 ^R" I 2DOI an^? ^ed i^, J.S.n6-"Q/....._ J ^;.. -^^.^,^-.-^ i ^r<?f 'u<^j7'~ j !u ^, p. A^^^<^?i. Tnhana!, | KA!'=UR: \ 31-T|c|t;'i* 7PIT rm w 9Ttf aiTcw ft" ^lf^T ^fffTC 3TTg ePT»W 53 ^sf NT t^T^l JE-TPT qrc®yri-'TtTO rrra JTPT Tt'v ge?ft' I^TO ??T1^' ws^s T"^T Troy 1 t"'<ii '>i'jiEB ^w 'l 1 y^wfc TTRR 6T7T at^ ^a T?iyn~ 'NTFT ^t-o^o »WT rro^- J2J tf1c||p|tt cfTS frTFPT, r^) eft^. frTTPT ^lit'llnq 8 Tra^f Isl ^cf ^qTcra.'rfsT^ETr ?f ^rpr Tpy j ut'dl^is | 311^1 T^ E-THT 19 y4 liyT'li)! 3fTE~ra70T SffE-TTWff 19BE "^ sr^rn i 3IT^FT ?T 1^Id Tqq<" l El| 3TI^ ?T ?c|c)i>l"T rfrsT^^r wrfe ayn' g2I 3RT^?9 ?T Rq<"r rfrsT^^ ^rrfr ayn- '"-*-»'';gES3c'a^£^^r'^'4"^'7^'ri^^y^has^^-^^ s^ Bl iSIS: i!l s Kiflli; 1111 ffil-l' ?Ki :3 IflBI^ '^'l! W!-: ® f^-: ;IBBI; ••^;:i.i '^\\ liBsl' i :JilS^ isy, 'iBBN i'l'li^ n|!Mr:rs PETITIONER RESPONDENTS HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT B1LASPUR (Hon. Mr. Justice Pritinker Diwaker) Writ Petition (S) No. 3699 of 2005 Ram Phal Sharma VERSUS State of Chhattisgarh and others Shri H.S Ahluwalia counsel for the petitioner. Smt. Smitha Ghai PL for the respondents. WRILPETITIONUNDERARTICLE^ZeLOFTHE CQNSTITUTIONQFINDIA ? ORDE^R (31.8.2010) Challenge in the presentwrit petition is to the order dated 30.05.199i (Annexure P-1) by which the petitioner has been directed to pay the amount of, Rs.14, 387 which according to respondents/State was the excess paymen^ made to the petitioner. i' 2. Brief facts of the case are that the petitioner is a retired Head Master of the School Education Department and retired in the same capacity frorrj Prjmary School, Serwa, Block Kasdol, District Raipur, on 31.01.1998. It js no^ in djspute that initially the petitionerwas appointed as Assistant teacher orj 11.12.1955 at Primary School, Malda, Raipur, promoted to the post of l-|eac| Master on 05.04.1981 and continued on the said post till his retirement i.e;] 31.01.1998. It is also not.in dispute that the petitioner was granted the benefi^ of recommendations of Choudhary Pay Commission as also that of Fundamental Rule 22 D on the post of Head Master. | 3. Counsel for the petitioner submits that the order impugned dated 30.05.1998 has been passed without giving any opportunity of hearing to ths .petitioner and that the petitioner had not drawn any excess amount and .whatever amount he has been paid by the respondents, the petitioner has accepted the same as his salary right from 05.04.1981 till the date of hi^ retirement. He submits that if any excess amount was paid to the petitioner fo( no fault on his part, the respondents are not entitled to recover the same] According to the counsel for the petitioner, the petitioner was not at fault at all in receiving the benefit of the higher pay scate nor had he played any fraud or misrepresented any manner whatsoever in so doing, the recovery as contemplated by the respondents is wholly illegal and uncalled for. He submit^ yz ^ Mffl ifl^ -•^'•fe j.lrr .iii-! tl 1811 II I » s i^liii;: li!:'ffiil!i: iliS '%> -?- that the case of the petitioner is squarely covered with the decision of the Ape^ Court in the matter ofSahib Ram vs. State of Haryana and others reported ir| 1995Supp(1) SCC 18 in which it has been held as under: "However, it is not on account of any misrepresentation made by , the appellant that the benefit of higher pay scale was given to | him but by wrong construction made by the Principal for which the appellant cannot be held to be at fault. Under the .: circumstances, the amount paid till date may not be recovered from the appellant." | [ Similarly in the matter of Vidyadhar Tiwari vs. State of C.G. and others! reported in 2006(1) IVIPHT 105 it has been held by the High Court of Chhattisgarh that for the excess payment if any, made to the petitioner, wher] he was not at fault and the amount received by him might have been used b^ adjusting himself accordingly treating the same as his salary. At this stage| direction for recovery of the alleged excess amount from the pensionan benefits ofthe petitionerwi.11 not bejustand proper. ijlli 4. Counsel for the petitioner submits that the pensionary benefits wer^!| given to the petitioner only after deducting the entire amount of Rs. 14,387j'! deposited by the petitioner through Bank challan and therefore the respondentg may be directed to refund the same along with 6% interest to the petitioner within four months from the date of receipt of copy of this order. |'- i 5. State Counsel does not dispute the fact that the amount sought to b^ recovered from the petitioner was given to him under FR 22-D though he was notentitled forthe same.the recoverywas sought. i' 6. Admittedly the amount which has been paid to the petitioner was towaFdE the salary of the post of Head Master and the petitioner was not at fault nor ,has he misrepresented in any manner whatsoever or played fraud with th^: respondents in so doing. In fhisview ofthe matter, fhe order impugned is se^ aside. .7. In the result, the petition is allowed and the order impugned is set asidej Amount of Rs. 14,387 deposited by the petitioner throughj Bank challan is directed to be refunded to him within a period of fourmonth^ from the date of receipt of copy of this order, with interest at the rate of 6 pef cehtper annum. _-^- Sd/- Pritinker Diwaker Judge ^ Sf 'ft':'. '•'• ;«i;l'.i;