^ ^l'^i^Afe. Mahaveer Shu'K'la S/o C'thana Ram Shukla, aged 61 years, i'etifed Asst. Eagitieet', Hasdeo Baneo Project, Biiaspur, R/b Bangali Para, Nays (C.G.) 1. State of Resources Departueat, D.K.S. Bfaa (C.G.) 2. Chief Eagiaeer, liasdeo Bango Project, Bilt Raipur 3. Joint Director ofTreasury aud Aeoounts, Bilaspur Division, Bilaspur (C.G.) •rQ-fTt ryCTmr\'^,7 TTKTT^T;T» AISTT/^T 'V ^^£f^^fT ir\T7 TTJrE'·^r^"^..TC.1r^T^TTrTT.r^'^T /^,1? T^TT^T A i^i:, 1 i i iUl^ UlNUiLKAK.iIv/i-J^ 220/Z// Ui< iilii UUftSilii U llUI'^.Ui'ILNi^lA V, Sbri P.R.Patarikar, Advoca'te fbr the petitioaer. Smt. Simta Ghai, Panel Lawyer forthe State/res' /•p'assed on 04U1 day of March, 200! "fhe petitioner is asgrieved bv the action offhe teiits have dedueted a sum ofRs. 1:2.< towards excess payment made to the petitioner during the perio' 19.04.1999 to 30.06.2003. The brieffacts, in autshell, are tbat the petitionerjoined his services as Temporary Overseer. He was promoted to the post of Sub Engineer ia the year 1981. In fhe year 1983, the pstitioner was again promotsd to the post of Assistant Engineer on adhoc basis and accordingiy, his pay waa d on 31.10.1983 at Rs. 1330.00 under F.R. 22(D). The pay ofthe petitioner was revised from time to time. In the year 1984, fhe pay fixation ofthe petitioner was checked aad verified bythe respondent No. 3_aad it was directed to recover the excess amount ofRs. 29,925/- •n-hich was fixed erroneouslv. Ttlie petitioner challenged the said recova-y before fb.e Madhva Pradesh Administrative Tribunal. The Tribi.mal, vide its order dated 13.08.1998 quashed the order ofrecovery Aited 30.10.1995. However, it was faeid that fhe petitioner was not entitled to get the pay scale as per F.R. 22(D) inst.ead the pay scale of the petitioner should be fixed in accordance with F.R. 22(A)(ii). ——-——-...-<3. .y^-^'"%. f€ •^ •<s. '^£"ff& S 1 VT"3SII \ '^^// ^.:]s"y '—.•^--—E' T 4. 6-S In the year 2000- the petitioaer was granted revised pay scale of Rs. 10.000-325-15200/- vids order dated 04.12.2000 (Ajmexiire P/4). Tnereafter, the petitioner retired oa 30.06.2003 from 'his sen'ic'e and ?Aen his ca'se was sent for sau.ction of pension, certain defects v;ere pointed out by the respondent No. 3, and the respoadent No. 2, vide the impugned order dated 09.07.2003 (Annexure P/5), was directed to recover the excess payment made to the petitioner and revise t'ne psnsion ofthe petitioner, accordingly. Shrs P.R.Pataakar, leamed counsel appearins for the petitioner suhmits that there is no fault on the part ofthe petitioner and the amount is paid to hini in accordaace with the pav scales. revised and fixed bv tfae respoadents from tims to tiine. Ttie .respondents eaanot recover the id t< ter us A that too lustice. It is farfher submitted that the petitioner does not want to press other reliefs oa merit except that fhe amount which has alreadv been psid to the petitioner cannot be recovered from the retiral dues on account of excess payment made to the petitioner during that period, without aftbrding an opportunity ofhearing. Smt. Smita Ghai, leamed Panel Lawyer for tfae State/respondents 1 to 3 submits that since the pay of the orovisions and oa scrutinv it was fl» •ss's'. tor tlie State/res petitioner was fixed fbund that excess ai from the retiral ts of tt petitioner, even on retirement, without afibrding an opportanity of 7. Tae Supreme Court, in the case ofSahib Ram Vs. State ofHaryana and otkers , ia p-ara 5 has held as uuder: ".?. Admittedly tke appellant does not possess the required educational qualification. Undw the c~iK'imistai'"icus the appellant would not be entitled to the relcacaSon. The Principal er'r'ed in grantmg him the rektxation. Since the date of relctxation tke appeliant had been paid his salary on the revised scale. Hovever, it is not on account of wiy misreoresentation rnade bv the apnelkint that. the benefit of the higher pay scale 'was given to him but by wrorig constructtors made by the Principal for which the appeliant caimot be held to be at fuuli. Under tke c'ti'cumstances the amount oaid^tb.l date mav not be racovered fi'am the u ..^ ^d-- le respondent-authorities ha.ve not foilowed the principles of natura! justice and the .impugned action has been taken wifboat affbrdmg an opportunity of hearing to the petitioaer. Tfae practice of passing order mvoiving civil/evil consequences, is condemned. Thus, fhis action of tteducting Rs. 12,4$0/- from retira.1 dues is bad oa account ofthe fact that fhe petitioner was not afforded any opportuaily of hearins betbre the impugned action was taken, aiso. This Court, in fhe case ofVidvadhar Tivari Vs. Stafe ofCkhattissarh & Othersi has held tliat for the sxcess payment, if atiy, made to the petitioner, he was not at fault and the amount received by him might have been used by adjustine himselfaccordinelytreatiagthe same-as his saiary. At this stage, directmg recovery of the alleaed excess amount from the pensionary benefits o-f the petitioaer will not be just and In view ofthe foregomg and as admitted by Isamed counsel appeari.n )arties. fhis passed ia f deducted be costs. case of to tbe is aisposed ot in Vidvadhar Tiwari fsupra). The Ni e order unt so asto Sd/- Satish K. Agnlhotri Judge ). 1995 Supp(l) SCC 20 2. 2006 (1) MPHT 105 (CO) Aniit