PETITIONER RESPONDENTS ^'^ ^yS\^ ^s^ ['• c/\^ IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTJSjprARH AT BILASPUR. WRIT PETITIOK (S) NO.SiO'l^ OF 2009 Kamaldhar Patel S/o Thandaram Patel, aged about 65 years, R/o Jhulkadam, Near Church Sakti, District Janjgir Champa C.G. VERSUS /'" 1. State of C.G., Through: the Secretary School Education Department, DKS Bhawan Raipur C.G. 2. The Director, Directorate Public Instruction Raipur C.G. 3. The Assistant Director Treasury Accounts and Pension, Bilaspur WRIT PBTITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA FOR ISSUE OF AN APPROPRIATE WRIT IN_THE NATURE OF MANDAMUS/CERTIORARI BTC. OR DIRECTION/ORDER IN THE LIKE NATURE ETC. MAY THIS PLEASE TO YOUR LORDSHIP, A^ HIGH COURT OF CHHATTI8QARH : BILA8PUR wRrr pErmoN IQ) No. 6324 ofaoos PETITIONER RESPONDENTS Shri M. L. Tiwari VERSUS State of Chhattisgarh & ofhers And W.P.(S) Nos. 6325/2008, 243/2009, 300/2009 and 301/2009. WRFT PETITIONS UNDER ARTICLE 226 OFTHE CONSTrTUTION OF INDIA (SB: Hon'bk Shri Satish K. AgDihotri J.) Shri Rakesh Pandey, Advocate for the petitioners. Shri Yashwaat Su^fa Thakur, Depuly Advocate General with Ms Siinita Jain, Panel Lawyer. ORDERIoraU (Passed on fhis 10th day ofSeptember, 2009) Heaid. 1. The aforementioned five wnt petitions involve common question of facts and ]aw, asto whether, the emptoyee offhe State Govenuuent is entitled to benefits of initial pay ia the tune scale of h^her post oa beiag appointed to anofher post canying duties and responsibilities af greater importaace ia accordance wifh Riilc 22-D of the M.P./C.G. Fundamental Rules (for short, -F.R.'). The aforeinentioned writ pctitions also iavolve coininon question offacts aad ]aw, asto whefher, recoveiy of excess payment caa bc made wifhout foUowing the principles ofiiaturaljusti.cc. 2. The bricf facts, in uutshcll, are that in W.P.(S) No. 6324/2008 fhe petitioner Shri M. L. Tiwari, whUe workimg on. the post of Head Master was promoted to thc post of Lecturer on 28.1.1988. After his retirement by order dated 28.3.2008 (Annexure P/l) a sum of Rs. 51,473/- has been recovered fi?om thc retiral ducs, as excess paymcnt. of. SiiUBaq jo ^iiitq-ioddo TIB SmpiiojgB i.noTpua. passed uaaq 3ABq lunomB jo AaAOoai jo sjapao aqj, isod {Buopomoiid B si jarrqoaq jo »sod aqj, •euopoitQsur aApTiosxa AIB j(q papaoiiadns aq ^OUHBO 'a'-il J° siioisiAcud aqj, -^.Tiiqisuodsai jaqftq StipCtreo jaiiqoaq » jo fsod aq? no 'a-ss 's'd J0 suoisiAOiid aq^ tpiA aouBpdoooB Tn paxg SBA Xgd Jpqj, •-laxiqoyi jo isod aq^ oi» paioTttcud 00^ ja^sB^ peaH jo isod aip uo SuppoA anqM 'sjaaoic^ad 3Ag aqt ne fB^ snroqns -ouopTtad aq^ -roj Saaceaddv psunoo p3TUBg[ 'Sapwad qsaqBa uqs •^nau&fed SS33X3 SB 'sanp ^Bipai svf^ mcug paoAooai uaaq seq -/e/,T'Zl -sy jo mns B (i/d amxauav) goOE'9'OT pa»Bp -rapiio Aq laataaipai siq jayy "S66T"OT"OS TIo -lanqoyi jo ^sod svy. <q patonioiid SBA jatSB^ peaH jo isod aqi uo SappOA 3(tqA 'jase^ ieq inBseg jauopitad aiR 600S/TOe •ON (s)'d'M ni •^naniifed S833X3 SB 'sanp p^Rai sny. vao.g paiaAOoai aaaq seq - /gSZ'SS 'sy J0 Tnns B (i /d ainxaimv) ZOOe'Z'S psfep japto Xq tuaniaiRai siq sayv '686T •t'"OT uo jaiiqoy] jo isod 3q» Q) patoaiojd SBA JSISBN PBSH jo isod aip uo topi.ioA 3pqA 'Tpvad -nfqplBUiBM -laaoppad aqi 600S/OOG •ON (s)"d"AV "1 •yiavaAad ssaoxa SB 'sanp laipai 3Tp vaag. paraAooai uaaq seq -/oe/.'ST 'sy jo tnns v (T/d amxaOTiv) goOS'e'Ee pa^Bp japio ^Cq ^irauiaiRgii siq Jayv "966T'OT'fr5 uo jamioaq jo -»sod aqi 01. pa»onicud SBA .ia»SBN PB3H J0 ^sod st^ TIO giippoA aipl^ 'IBAsrep urey puooq .rauopRad aq» eOOS/Bt'S "ON (s)"d"M til fasmSBd ssaoxa SB 'sanp iRipai aip. uioig paraAooai iiagq s®q-/g^o'SZ; "sy jo mns B (i/d amxauav) EOOZ'T'OT pa»8p jBpao ^Cq itxamaiita.t stq -iagv '886T"T'IS no -tajntoyi jo ysod aqi o»pa(oinoad SBM Jta»SB«PBSHJO ^sod atp uo SappOA a[tqA 'UBABJ, pcnqo qsBqqng janop^pad aip 800S/SSe9 •ON (s)'d'M "1 ^v- L-. 8. fhc petitioncrs. Thus, the impugncd oaders of reccweiy may be quashed. To substantiate his aiyiinent tearned counscl tefy on a decision of fhis Court in CUnta Maai Oupta V». State of Chhattt^nrh te others, Writ Petition No. 4797 of 2004, dated 27*b March, 2008, as well as a decision in Vldyadlwr TIwnt V«.State of Chhattii^sarb and others1. Shri Yashwant Siagh Thakur, learaed Deputy Advocate Gencral wifh Ms Sunita Jaiu, tearaed Paael Lawyer appeariug for the respoiidents/State, does not dispute the above subnussion madc by leamed counsel appearu^ for the petitioners fhat these writ petitions are squarety covered by the decision of tfais Coiut in Chlnta Mant Oapta (suprE^, wherem fhis Court hcld as imdcr: *13. It is clcar fcoin. above that fhe post of kcturer is a promotional post Contentfon of leamed. counsel &r the State that thc pay scale of Hcad Masters aad Lecturers is siaular, is not supportcd by auy document Siace the recoveiy otder wa^ passed without affordu^ proper opportunity of hearii^ to thc petitioner, fhe ordcr of recoveiy is bad in law m fhe light of dccisk>ns of Hoa'ble Supreaie Court in. fhe laatters of Shyam Babu Venna and others Vs. Union of Indu and others, Safaib Raia Vs. State ofHatyaaa and others aad decision ofthis Court ia Vidyadhar Tiwari Vs. State of Chhattisgarh and ofhers." In view of the foregoing, tfac writ petitions are allawed. The impiq?icd orders dated 28.3.2008, 10.1.2003, 23.2.2005, 6.2.2007 and 10.6.2002, directuq; recoveiy of excess paytneat are quashed. In case the ainouat has been recovered, fhc same shaU be refunded baclc to thc petitioiners wifb suaple iatcrest The petittoiiers are entitled to benefits of FR 22-D. No order asto costs. Sd/- Satish K. Agnihotri Judge 1.A.. ....—_- Thakur ' 2006 (1) MPHT (CG) 105 1