(^ i s^n BEFORE THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTCSeARH AT BILASPUR WRIT PETETCON (S) N0. 5'2^ /2009 PETITIONER RESPONDENTS ^'yy •<%7 ^ames Mosih, Aged about 61 years S/o. Late Shri Mohan Masih, R/o. Shakti Nagar, Shankar Nagar, Sangam Chowk, Raipur (C.G.). VERSUS 1. ^ State of Chhattisgarh, Through the Secretary, General Administration Department (Vetan Aayog Prakosth). Mantralaya, D.K.S. Bhawan, Raipur. 2. The Divisional Joint birector, Treasury & Pension Department, Through the District Treasury Officer, Raipur Division, Raipur (C.G.). 3. TheSecretary, bepartment of Finance, b.K.S. Bhawan, AAantralaya, Raipur. 4. The High Power Committee, (Pension <& Retiremental fienefits), Through the Chairman. b.K.S. Bhawan. Mantralaya. Raipur (C.G.) WRTT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA ^y^ .^sy ^ ^ @ HIGHCOURTOPCHHATTISa^^AT^^m^ SB : HON*BLE MR. JUSTICB PRITmKBR DIWAKER PBTITIONER RESPONDBNTS W.P.tSl.MO^SasSSjfgOOS Zamea Masili veraus State ofC.G. & Others Shri Andnd Dubey, counsel ft>r -tlie pefritioxier. Shri N.Nalia Roy, P.L. for the State/resp. No.l. WRIT PBTITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OP THE CONSTITUTION OFmDXA ORDER (20.07.2011^ ChaUenge in fhe present writ petition is to the order dated 30.4,09 (Anixexure P/1) by wtiich the recovery of Rs, 70,554 faas be^n sought for fix>m flie petitioner, 2. Brief facts of the case are that the petitioner is a retired driver ofthe P.W.D. and has retired on 30.11.08. 3. Accordiag to fhe counsel for the petitioner, after his ret&renient fhe order im.pugned dated 30.4,09 (Annexure P/l) has been issued seeking recoveiy of Rs, 70^554 froin him aad before issuing the said order, no opportunity whatsoever has been giveii to him« In the retum filed by the respondente it has been averted that fhe benefit of second higher pay scale under the schei&e of Krmnwmnti was wrongly given to the petitioner witli effect from 17«3-99/19,4.99aaid as soon as the mistake came in the knowledge of the respondents, pay fixation ofthe petitionerwas agaia done on 28.1,09 by Annexiire R/ 1 aad fhen fhe recovery is beiiig sought froui fhe petitio3 r. 4. State couiisel however, does not dispute the fact fh.at before passiag the order impugra.ed (aanexiire P/1) the pctitioner was afforded any opportunity. It is a sefrtled legal positioa that tiie eiaployee who has received the higher scale due to xio fairit of liis, it shall be just aad proper not to recover aoy excess amoiint already 11 . 1 'i^ ^^:1 paid to him if fhe einployee is not at fault or has not miBrepreseiited himselt 5, Purfhermore, ia fhe case of Vidhyadhar Twrari Vs, State of Chhattisgarh & Otliers, 2006 (1) M.P.H.T. 105 (CG) it has been held by fhis Court fhat for the excess payment if aay, made to the petitioner, he was not at fault and ftie amount rcceived by him might have been used by adjustmg hiaiselfaccordiiigty treatmg fhe same as his salaxy. At this stage^ directmg recovexy of fhe alleged excess amoiint fix>m the pensionaiy beiiefits of fhe petitioner will not te just aad proper. 6, In view of the settled legal position, the iixipugned order dated 30.4.09 (Aimexare P/l) wifh regaid to fhe recoveiy of Rs. 70,554 of excess paynient inade to fhe petitioner is hereby quashed. If the amount has already beeii recovered, the petitioner is esititled to the said amount wifh interest at fhe rate of6% per acmum. However, it is open to tlie respondents/State to take recourse to Rule 65 of the Chhattisgarh Civil Services (Pension) Rules 1976 if so advised^ ia accordaace wifh law foUowiDig fhe basic pnnciples of natural justice. No order as to costs, —— Sd/- Pritinker Diwaker Judge