(Hon. Mr. ustice Pritinker iwaker) rit Petition (S) No. 3710 of 05 Shyamlal Dwngan HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR J D W 20 PETITIONER ea VERSUS ate of Chhattisgarh an tr RESPONDENTS St d ohes Si H.S hluwaa ounei for the petie. ‘ S. Smitha Ghai PL or the respondnts. WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTIONOFINDIA ORDER 8 20) (31 01 Challenge the present wri pein Is to the ord dted 3 ‘ (Ann P-1_) by wch the peioner as been drected to pay the ount R 7 whh ccording t resnents/Ste was the excess ymt m e one 2 f cts the case e th the peioner Is a reired Hd s Sol Educalon Department and rerd n the sa capa f ar coo Khr loc Kasdo strict Rlpu 13 o ispu t ntla ptito m a ASSIsta acher orl 19 at Primary Sco Tundr Rlu promote to th post o ea Mter on 05 04 198 and coninued on the sa post l is rrreme 7 196 t I lso not In ispute tha the peioner wa granted te recommendns of Choudhy Pay CommISSIon as alo at o n Rle n the pt He aste I ‘3I o tti sit or Imed dated 3O O 1 as e sd Wth VIn ot o ar to th ttio a titoe ad nt draw s amt an whaeve mou a paid rns ptitioner nas ac e a his r 5 4 t h date o hs rt e t f a d tt frd no fault on his part, the responent arno entitled to recove t same‘ ording to t couns for the petitioner, the petitioe was t faul l rivg th befit of th higher pay cae nor had he aye a fr 0 misepretd any ner whatsoever n so dmg the rery r ontemplat the respondents s wholly leg nd uncalled o He sui the cho t tie I me CIty rom Primy Shl ala Bk l Di ar on 7 1996 It Is nt dte tha Illly the einer was appoted s nt te , 28 8 94 hol a apr d e f Hd l as 1 t id til h etnt Ie" 13 9 I s a d t tit s h benefit of atio ar s th f Fundametal g u 22 D o os of ad Mr ‘ L ‘ . Counsel fr the peioner ubms that the der pugn 5 998 h ben pase iout gIg any opprtuniy f heing peiner nd that the peinr h o n any exces oun tr ant he hs been by the espondet the e cepted th same s salary ight from O 0 1981 ill te f i eirement; H submis that I any excess mount was pai to the peiioner o ds eHt r he i l ‘ Acc he el nr no at t at al II] ecein e en e sl pld ny aud t I resne man I o cove as /V; ced by I Ilal a fr bmts hr Ali cs tionr mt f e In t ttio er a 0 O5 1998 exure hi tit h i am of ’ s 747 ic a o podat paen ade‘yt , to th petitir . Brie fa of ar at tti t ea Mater of «.Q... that the case of the petitioner is squarély covered with the decision of the Ap Court in the matter of Sahib Ram vs. State of Harvana and others reporteq 1995 Supp (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." 1 i, _ Similariy' in the matter of Vidvadhar Tiwari vs. State of C.G. and others: t ‘ reported in 2006(1) MPHT 105 it has been held by the High Court o Chhattisgarh that for the excess payment if any, made to the petitioner, wey he was not at fault and the amount received by him might have been used adjusting himself accordingly treating the same as his salaryt At this sta direction for recovery of the alleged excess amount from the pensionaryt l“ benefits of the petitioner will not be just and proper. Counsel for the petitioner submits that the pensionary benefits were: 1 , gNen'to the petitioner only after deducting the entire amount of Rs. 7,74?!” H deposited by the petitioner through Bank challan and therefore the respondents may be directed to refund the same along with 6% interest to the petitioner‘t, within four months from the date of receipt of copy of this order. 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 wa not entitled for the same, the recovery was sought. Admittedly the amount which has been paid to the petitioner was towardd, the salaty of the post of Head Master and the petitioner was not at fault nor hag he misrepresented «in any manner whatsoever or played fraud with the“ respondents in so doing. ln this view of the matter, the order impugned is se : In the result, the petition is allowed and the order impugned is set aside Amount of Rs. 7,747 deposited by the petitioner througtil‘v til! mOntl’iy ‘1 from the‘date of receipt of copy of this orderuwith interest at the rate of 6‘pe j cent per annum. Bank challan is directed to be refunded to him within a period of four 5d!- Pritinker Diwakel‘ Judge e‘ h _ ge‘. , I