HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR >.B: APPELLANTS Hon'ble Shri Suml Kumar Sinha, Hon'ble Shri Prashant Kumar Mishra, JJ. Writ Appeal No. 263 of2010 1. State ofChhattisgarli, Through : The Secretary Department oflrrigation D.K.S. Bhawan, Raipur (CG) 2. 3. Vs. RESPONDENT The Executive Engineer, VidufYantriki Light Machinery, Nalkup & Gate, Durg (C.G.) The Sub Divisional Of&cer, Tube Well Construction, Sub Division No.26, Rajnandgaon (C.G.) Surajbhan Singh Thakur S/o Late Shri Kanwal Singh Thakur, Aged about 54 years Nalkup Fitter, Vidyut Yantriki Light Machinery, Nalkup & Gate Sambhag Rajnandgaon (CG) Appearance: Mr. A.S. Kachwaha, Deputy Advocate General for tfie appellants. Mr. Somkant Vemia, Advocate for the respondent. WRIT APPEAL U/S 2(1) OF APPEAL TO DIVISION BENCH ACT, 2006 ORAL ORDER (03.05.2011) Following oral order of the Court was passed by Syml Kymar Smha, J. Heard on I.A. No. 1/2010. (2) I.A. No. 1/2010 has been filed for condonation of delay in filing the writ appeal. According to the office report the appeal is iarred by 63 days oflimitation. n^'--. I1""iir' I- (3) On due consideration ofthe submissions ofleamed counsel for the parties and the grounds taken in Ifae application, we are satisfied that the appellants have successfully explained the delay in filing the appeal and the same deserves to be condoned. (4) Accordingly, I.A. No. 1/2010 is allowed and the delay in filing the appeal is hereby condoned. (5) Heard on admission. (6) Being aggrieved with the order dated 7 Apni, 2010 passed ia Writ Petition (S) No. 5561/2009 by Ae learaed Single Judge oftlus Court, the appellants have filed this appeal. By the impugned order the leamed Single Judge has allowed the writ petition in part and has quashed the impugned order passed in respect of recovery of excess payment made to the respondent. It has also been directed that if the amount has already been recovered, the respondent would be entitled to the said amount, subject to verification of facts. However, the respondent would not be entitled to any interest as his claim was belated i.e. filed after a period ofabout 14 years. (7) It appears that respondent was granted increment on account of Family Planning Operation. Some payment was also made to him. "Later on it was found that the respondent was not entitled to such increments, tiierefore, the said authorities by passing the impugned order cancelled the increments granted to the respwndent and directed for recovery of payment already made to him. Though the writ petition was filed challenging entire action ofthe Stateand the order r •.•.««".f -9 - v \v> dated 22/08/1995 and farther that the amount of increment granted and being paid to the petitioner be ordered to be restored and the amount deducted on account of payment made for family planning be refunded to him, but while hearing,the writ petition, counsel for the respondent restricted his claim that the payment whateoever has been made to the respondent on account of increment granted to the respondent by the appellants/authorities may not be recovered as there was no fault on the part of the respondent in receiving such payment. (8) The leamed Single Judge relying on the decision of the Supreme Court in Sahib Ram Vs. State of Haryana and others, 1995 Supp (1) SCC 20 held that no recovery can be made if it is not on account of any misrepresentatiori or fraud committed by the employee, but by WTong construction made by the authorities. The leamed Single Judge, therefore allowed writ petition and quashed fhe impugned order relating to recovery of excess payment made to the respondent. (9) The leamed Single Judge farther direeted that if the amount has already been recovered, respondent would be entitled to the said amount, subject to verification of facts. The leamed Single Judge farther directed that the respondent would not be entitled to my interest as long time has been elapsed after the incident of alleged deduction. (10) Mr. A.S. Kachwaha, leamed Deputy Advocate General assailed the impugned order 6n various grounds, however he also c\\ ^- does not dispute that the family planning increment was not awarded to the respondent on account of any misrepresentation or fraud committed by the respondent. (11) Considering the above mentioned broad features-of the case and that tfae increment was granted long back to a low paidemployee, we do not find any good ground to interfere in this appeal filed against the impugned order dated 7 April, 2010 passed by the leamed Single Judge. (12) The appeal, therefore, fails and the same is dismissed at the motionstage itself^ Sd/- Sunil Kumar Sinha Judge Sd//- Prashant Kumar Mishra Judge