Jaijaipur R/o Village Katetara, Post Distt Champa (C.G.) VERSUS 1. \K RESPONDENTS The p/ét‘itioner most hu éubmit as under : State of Chhattisgarh Through Secretaxy Education Department, Bhawan Raipur (C.G.) Director 2.” Officer, Dataud, Janjgir School D.K.S. HIGH COURT OF CBHATTISGakRI-i AT BELASPUR SB : HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE PRITINKER D1WAKE§ W W.P.§S!.‘W0. 4488/ 2019 PETITIONER Gopal Ram Chandra V€r$us RESPONDENTS State Gf Chhamsgarh &. OtherS Shn Ra}esh Kumar Shanna (31111561 for the petmone. Shn Pxa‘veen Das, Dy G A fax the kytatp WRIT PETITION UNDER &TICLE 225 OF THE CONSTITU’HON GF ‘NDIA ORDER (22 0’? 201 1) 1n the msfant petmon, the pehuoner W110 15 a named Blcwk Educauon O$ccr of the School Educauon Department has agsallec the order datcd 20.7.20 10 (Annexure Pl 1} passed by the zespf No.4- Disu’ct Education Offlcer Janjgir, Dismct danjgir-Champa directing thc recovely of Rs. 1,45,795 mm the petitiomar which was paid to him during his service period from 1.4.81 to 31.3.08. 2. Contention of the counsel for the petiu'oner is that tho pay of the petitioner was mvised on account of his being pootcd as Headmaster and he was not aware that any excess payment wee made to him or any Wrong fixation of salarywbae been done. Counsel for the petitioner submits that he never miexepresented the: respondents nor has played any &aud for obtaining any excess amount if any paid to him and therefore the Order impugned seeking recovexy of Rs. 1,45,795 is bad. in the eye of law. He has placed his suong reliance in the judgment of the Apex Court in the matters of Sahib Ram Vs. State of Haryana as Others reportee m 1995 Sup? (1) SCC 18 and Syed Abdul Qadir 65 Others Vs. State of Bihar & \ Others repoxted m (2009) 3 SCC 475. He further subnnts that based ‘\ V o , on the judgment of the Supreme Court this Court has yassed several orde’rs quashing the recovery of any such excess amount made to the petitioner. 7 On the other han. supparting tbs imiaugned onier it has 'bctm argued by Shri Pmvcen Das that before passing the impugned order, the petitioner was given due opportunity Vide notices (Annexum P/7,8 8r, 9) dated 16. 1.09, 30.6.09 8r, 27.1 1.09. He submits that even if the petiu'oner has not played any &aud or has misrepresented, he had the knowledge that he was not entitled for the amount which was paid to him in excess. 3. 4. Hem counsel for the parties and perused the records. Return $ed by the respondents nowhere states that the petitioner has any knowledge about the fact that he was paid, excess. amount or was yaid the enhanced salmy. Record also does not reflect that the petitioner at any point of time, had played fraud or had misrepresented for allegedly obtaining the excess salaty. It is well settled law that if the excess amount was not paid on account of any misrepresentation or &aud on the part of the employee for giant of . higher pay scale given to him, he cannot ,be held liable for the same and it will be too harsh to make such mcovery. Even this Comt in catena of cases has complied well with the settled principles of law as laid down by the ApeX‘Couit and has set aside the order of recovexy. I 5. Considering the facts and encumstances of the case, the impugned otder dated 20.073010 (Annexure P] 1) passed by the respondent N0.4 is set aside. With the above observation, the petition stands disposed of. . t t i l t SW— i V r iPritinkerBiwaker Judge @ d