<s HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR Writ Petition No. 1738 of 2006 Peti.tioD.er: Kursorara. Patel, S/o Late Shri Balak Kam I'atcl, Agcd about 65 years, R/o VtQagp T'faakurpaii, Post - Tarapur, 'fehsit & Uisf ; Kaigarh-(C,G.) Versus Respondents: 1. State of Chhattisgarli, Tbrough - Tfae Secretary, Tribal Welfare Ucpartmcnt, U.K.S. Bjtiawan, fief^ P^tni^^'- I<^ /T-1 '<,. x:\cu.puLt,~ l»^'<<^*^ 2. Tlie Dy. Coiiuiussioner, Tribal Weifarc Uepartment, Bilaspur, Dist: .yuaspur-(C.u.} 3. TIie •Jomt Director, Treasuries Accounts and Pensioa, Oilasplir-fC.G.) 4. The Collector, Rasgarti, Dist : Raisarh.-(C,G.'). 5, 'I'he Uist : Kducation Officer, Raigarh- (C.G.). fe. 'l'hc Uist ; 'l'rcasurics Officcr, RaigarIi-(C.G.j WRiT PSTITIOlg URDER ARTICLE 226/227 OE* THE COH8TITUTIOB OF !NDIA Siagie Besch; Hon'blc Mr. Justicc Satish K. Agnifaotri. Shri. Sanjay PeAeLi Advocate foi tisue petite&ner. Shri Sushil Dubey, Govt. Advocate for the respondeB.ts. O R DE R { Rissed on this 30th day ofApril, 2007) "I ^T^IT.^M -»t^^-ir+t/^-m<^T> t<-i rT/^/va-*»rf3;TT^s/^ ITFT- +bl-»^a /-t/^'^'-t/^-di jr\-f +T^a^ . T'C^d^T^/^'BI/'l^-^T^'^'t X. i ilC ^JC U.U.L/iiCi i£» i^ggilCVCU. Liy UJ.C iA'L.'fcJHJii. <Ji LLi.^ ACa^JuiiU.CAii.e* ^t^J'slTT;- +^1^ TV*^^T»rtl/^-F»/^.Cfn^"^"t l-adTT?^3 /;I ^E^^l-aj-I ^/^ 4-^\ -r^a/-i/iTr^a-y*- r-h f^^'s-fl'y> /^- w Ai.Cl C.U^' i-u.^ Al;S»^JiiJiJ.U.CiJ.L£> iiiAVC; UC^J&U.C.y. tSj iCiJUVCx ci. £»Ui-U. ul Rs. 23,935/-, as per the oider dated 30,8.2003, on the basis of fhe Chart (Aiuiexure P/3), as exceas payment raade to the petitioner. 2. The brieffacts, iu nutsheU, are that the petitionerwas appointed ou. fhe post of Assistant Master vide order dated 21.11.1963 (Annexure P/1), On 6.9. 1989 fh.e petitioner was promoted on fh.e post of Upper Division Teacher aad fhereafter ou the post of Head Master on 6.9.1989 (Annexure P/2) ia fhe pay scale of Rs. 1540- 2760. The petitioner retired fiom fhe service on attaming the age of superannuation w.e.f. 31.12.2002. The petitioncr received fh.e order dated 30.8.2003 (Anaexure P/3) whereby it is directed that a sum of Rs. 23,935/- is to be recovered fix>m fhe pensionary benefits of ttie petitioner towards recoveiy of excesa payment for fhc period 7.10.1989 to March, 1997. 3. Leamed counsel appeanag for flie petitioner submits fh.at there is no fault ou fhe part of the petitioner and fhe aniount is paid to him in accordance witti fh.e pay scales, revised by tfae respondeuts from time to tuae. The rcspoiidents cannot recover fh.e aniouat, already paid to the petitiouer, after such a lon( period, after his retu-enieiit, that too without following fhe principles ofnatural justrce. 4. Leamed counsel appearmg for fbe respondeuts submits fhat since the pay offh.e petitmuer was fixed contrary to fhe provisions of Fundamental Rule 22-D (1), fhe excess aiaount can be recovered fi»m fhe pensionaiy benefits of the petitioner, eveu afier his retirement. 5, Thc Suprcmc Court m fhc casc of Sahib Ram Vs. State of Karyaaa aad ot&ers1 in para 5 has hcld as undcr;- °5. Adrmttedly the appellant does tvst possess the required educaffona? (pjiaKftocdiores. Under the circuirtstaiixxs the appellcml would nof be erditled to the relaxaiion. The erred in granling him. the relaxatwn. Since ihe date the appellani had been pmd his scslary on the revised sccSe. However, it is riot on aocxsv.nt of aiy Piiiuspal es qf relaxc^ion th m.isrepresenlation made by the appelkinf that the benefii of the Mglwr pay socrie was yven to hiin bui by wrong csnstivction made by Ihe Prindpal for which the appelfanS oannoi be held to be a1 fcsult. Under ilw arcwnstcawes the anwurd. paid fill daie may nof be reoovered ffom. the appellant..............' 6, This Coiirt m fhc easc of Vidyadhar Tiwari Vs. State of Chfcattis^rli CB othea-s? has hcld that for tlic cxccss paymcut, if any, made to the petitioaer, he was not at iault aad the amoiint received by him might Iiave been used by adjusting hitnself accordingly treatmg the same as his salaiy. At ttus stage, directiag recovery of ftie aUeged excess aiaouut fioin the peasionaiy benefits ofthe petitioner wUl aot be just aad proper. 7. In view of the foregoiug, this petitiou stands disposed of ia term.s of thc oi-dcr passcd m fhc casc ofVidyadhar Ttssal (Supi-a). No Sd/- Satish K. Agnihotri Judge { 1995 Supp (1) S.C.C. 20»,, {2006 (lj M.P.H.T. 105 (C.G.P', Thakur