s' ^g^ ^>. ;'1-'','-•A f.T.--r. fc ^>yigy(@ ^0|'|©| ^ ^-^ la^/^ INTHE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR W.P,(S.) N0. j 2-S2- / 2009 PETITIONER: I^WNI^ \ Shabbir Khan S/o Late Bisahu Khan, Aged about 69 years, ^^vS^^ Retired Head Master, R/o vmage .^": .^~ ^ .^"".^''^'" ,^-^y 'y^.-"' Post and Talisil Navagarh, District-Janjgir- Cham.pa (C.G.) VERSUS ^ RESPONDENTS 1. State of Chhattisgarh: Through The Secretary, School Education Department, D.K.S. Bhawan, Raipur (C.G.) 2. The Joint Director Treasury Accountant and Pension BUaspur, Distdct Bilaspur (C.G.) 3. The District Education Officer. District Janjgir Champa (C.G.) 4. The Principal Govt Higher Secondary School, Navagarh, Distt Janjgir-Champa (C.G.) WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA FORJSSUANCE OF WRIT IN NATURE OF MANDAMUS CERTIORARY OR ANY OTHER WRIT OF LIKE NATURE ETC. ?7/ ? ; S RESPONDENTS HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGH AT BILASPUR (Hon. Mr. Justlce Pritinker Diwaker) Writ Petstson (S) No.1232 of 2009 R Shabbir Khan VERSUS The State of C.G. & others. L. Shri D.R. Patel, counsei forthe petltioner. Ms. Sunita Jain PL for the respondents /State. WR[T_PETrr!ON UNDERART!CLE OF THE CONSTiTUTION OF INDIA (31.08.2009) With the consent of the parties the matter Is heard flnaf!y. In the instsnt petition the petltloner is seeking the fo!iowing reilef(3): sl10(i) That it is therefore prayed that this Hon'ble Court may l^ndiy be pleased to cali forthe entlre records ofthe petitioner case. (ii) That it is iherefore, prayed that thls Hon'bie Court may kindly be pleased to set- aside/quashed the order dated 27.4.2004 snd further kindly be dlrected the order to the respondents to not deduct the amount of Rs. 1,24.035/- from tha petltloner. (iil) That it is therefore prayed that this Hon'ble Court may kindly be p!eased to direct the respondents to pay recovered amount v^ith 6% Interest to the petitioner. (l\/) Any other re!lef, which may be dQemed, flt by thls Hon'bie Court just and proper in the facts and circumstanc&s of the '^ case may also be provlded in favour of the petltloner." <-jt,_ 2. Brief facts of the case are that the petltioner was an empioyee of Schooi Education Department who retired from the post of Head Master on 28.2.2002. By the order impugned dated 27.4.2004 (Annexure P-2) recovery of Rs. 1,24,035/- to be effected from the petitioner has been ordered by respondent No.4. 3. Contention of the petitioner is that the order impugned regardlng recovery has been passed without giving any opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and without disciosing the fact as to on vvhat basis the recovery is sought to be made. He piaced reiiance on the decisions of the Supreme Court in the matter of Sahlb Ram Vs. State of Harvana & others1 & in the matter of Purshottam Lal Das & others Vs. SSate of Bihar & others2. In these two decisions it has been hetd by the Supreme Court that if the excess payment is made due to the wrong construction of reievant order by the authority concerned without any mlsrepresentation on the part of the employee, no recovery can be made from the employee and if recovery is aiready made, it is liabie to be restrained. 4. Counsei for the respondents/State submits that State has every right to recover the excess payment made to its empioyees as per rule 65 ofthe Chhattisgarh Civll Services Pensions Rules, 1976. 5. Heard counsel for the parties and perused the materiai avaiiable on record and the judgments of the Supreme Court clted above. 6. in view of above factuai scenario and the law iaid down by the Apex Court, the instant petition deserves to succeed and the order impugned dated 27.4.2004 (Annexure P-2) regarding recovery of Rs. 1,24,035/- is liabie to be set aside. ' 1995 Supp. (1) SCC 18 2(2Q06)11SCC492 '^ 7. The resuit is that the petition is aiiowed and the order impugned is set aside. !f the deduction has atready been made from the pension of the petitioner, the same shall be payable to him with interest at the rate of 6 per cent per annum. Needless to say that the respondents can aiways take the recourse to Rule 65 of the Chhattisgarh Civi! Services (Pension) Ruies, 1976 if so advised in accordance with iaw after foliowing basic principies of natura! justlce. 8. ResuStantiy, petition succeeds. Sd/- Pritinker Diwaker Judge nrsfA v.l-.-