'c C^ ISST^- BEFORE THE HONBLE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR. IftlfiS WP[S] No...o^.'.-T>../2010 Petitioners: 1 ^.l^; z^S^ .....^s^^ ^^Sff^"" ..•• K.L. Ladiya, S/o Shri J.P. Ladiya, Aged about 59 years, R/o Irrigation Colony, Civil Lines, Raipur, CG State. Vs Respondents: 1. StateofC.G. Through: Secretary, Water Resources Department, Govt. of CG, DKS Bhawan, Raipur. <£' 2. Engineer-in-Chief, Water Resources Department, Raipur CG State. 3. Chief Engineer, Water Resources Department, Bilaspur. CG State. WRIT PETITIQNUNDER_ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA FOR ISSUANC_E _OF_JVPPROPRIATE WRITSfS) ORDERfSI DIRECTIONrSI ETC. I 1 —^l. G8 HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH : BILASPUR PETITJONER RESPQNDENTS WRIT PETITION (S) N0.02 OF 2010 Smt, Kausalya Khusro Versus StateofC.G.&Others WRIT PETITipN<S) N0.03 OF 2010 PETITIONER D.L. Gond RESPONDENTS PETETIONER Varsus State of C.G. & Others WRIT PETITION (8) N0.04 OF 2010 Snrrt. Parvati Singh Yadev Versus RESPQNDENTS State of C.G. & Others WRIT PETITION (S) N0.841 OF 2010 PETFdONER Smt. Kunjannamma Versus RESPQNDENT8 PETITIONER RESPPNDENTS PETITJQNER RESPONDENTS PETITJONER RESPQMDENTS State of C.G. & Another WR{TJPETmON,(81Js|0^42i>F^QtO Triloki Nath Verma Versus StateofC.Q.&Others WeHLPETmON(SlJsi0^43.QF2|D10 K.L. Ladiya Versus StateofC.G.&Others WR!TPETmOJM_(S)Jia8440^2QlQ Jethu Ram jKhutef Versus State of C.G. & Another WRITPETIT(gN(SJ N0.862 QF^^^^ PETiTIONER Chandra Deo Singh Versus RESPONDENTS State of G.G. & Others WRlTPETmON(S) N0863 OF 2010 PETITIONER M.R. Jadhaw RESPONDENTS Versus StateofC.G.&Othws WRIT PETITION (S) N0.864 OF 201© PETITtONER SunilKumarJain RESPQNDENTS PE'iTTiONER RESPQNDENTS Versus State oT C.<3. & ©thers WRITPET[TIQN(S) N0.905 OF 2010 Mohd. Idrish Khan Versus State ot C.G. & Others WRITPETITIpN(S) N0.91SOF 2010 PETITJONER MuriiRam Panchare Versus RESPONDENTS State of C.€3.& Others WBLTPETmON_CSl_NO,967_QF201Q PgnnONER MahipSingh Versus RESPONDENTS State of C.©.& Othws WRtT_PETmCMSLIS).Na9680E2010 PETITIONER Pradeep Mishra Versus RESPQNDENTS State of C.G. & Others 69 I0 ••-^i' AND WRIT PETITION (8) N0.969 OF 2010 PETmONER Smt. Jyoti Andankar Versus RESPONDENTS State of C.Q. & Others (Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India) Singte Bench : Hon'ble Shri Satish K. Agnihcrfri. J. Present:- Shri K.R. Nair, Advocate for the petitioners. Shri Sushil Dutwy, Government Advocato for the Stete. 1. 2. ORDERfORAL) (Passed on this 24m day of February, 2011) Challenge in thls batoh of petitions namely W.P.(S) Nos. 02,03, 04,841, 842, 843, 844, 862, 863, 864,905, 915, 967, 968 and 969 <rf 2Q10 te to the order dated 8.6.2009, whereby the orders, grantlng benefrt of inGrements, in respect of Assistent Grade-KI, who have not passed Nindi Typewriting Examination, have been oancelled. Brief facts, in nutshell, in this bateh of writ petifons, are that frie petitioners were appointed on the post of Assistant Gracte III subject to the condition that they would have to pass the Hindi Typewriting Examination, until then they would not b®entitlect to the armuN Jncrements and only the baslc pay plus admissible allowances \wuld be paid. Subsequently the petitioners passed the Htndl Typewriting Examination and submitted certificate, accorcSingly they were allowedthe annual increments from the date of submlssion of the certiflcate, not from the date of his appointment. 3, Some of the simiiarly situated employees meved the State Administrative Tribunal. Aocording to the petitioners, m the matter of Malayadeen Verma and others Vs. State of M.P. (1991 MPST 379) the Tribunal (^issed the order that the applicants are entitted for grant of annual increments from the date of their initial appointment. In 0-A.No. flt ^>. 1 ,^1 \j-^ ^^^s^^ 4. 5. nl 1981/99 (B. L. Goyaj Vs. State of M.P. & others), the Tribunal, by order dated 29.10.1999, directed the respondents/State to examjne the csse of the applicant ;n the light of the ratio of the case of Malyadeen Verma and jf on suoh examinatjon the case of the apptscant is found to be simiiar, the benefit of grant of increments be extended to them. Pureuant to the order dated 29.10.1999, passed in B. L. Goyal (supra), the Engineer in Chief, Water Resources Department, directed the Chief Engineers by order dated 12.12.20)0 ftiat in the light of ttie decision of the Tribunal all the sjmilariy situated Asslstant Grade -III, who have passed the Hindi Typewriting Examtnation would be entitled to annuat increments after one years oftheir inJtialappQintment. Thereafter, the petitSoners filed writ pefitions before this Court, ^titeh were disposed of wrth liberty to the p^ltioners to file a representation before the concerned authorities and the concerned authorities wew, directed to consider and decide the representation on its own merits, tn accordance with law. The petitioners have filed these writ petitions, being aggrieved by ttie action of the respondent/authority, as by the impugned order dated 8.6.2009, the increments granted to the petitioners, have been withdrawn. Leamed counsel appearing for the petitioners submite that the respondents cannot take a stand, contrary to the judicial dfctum, as afore-stated. The petitioners are simJlarty srtuated emptoyees aad they are entitl^l to the benefrt granted in the matter of Malyadeen Verfna (supra), B« L< Goyat (supra) and several others. Learned counsel further submits that there is no fault on the part of the petjtioners. They have not made any misrepresentation and the annual increments have been granted to them in accordance with the orders passed by the competent authority, that too in comptiance of the judicial r72- ^-.. ^..^.J pronouncement by th®State Administrative Tribunal in ttie matters of similariy situated employees. 8. The impugned order dated 8.6.2009, withdrawing benefrt of annuat {ncrements, granted eartier, on the basis of the admiRistrative instructions is bad in iaw, ittegai and contrary to the judtoial pronouncemente. The reason assigned for recovery is not sustainabie, as there was no fault on the part of the petitioners. The respondante cannot recover the amount, already paid to the petitioners, for no fault of the empioyees, who has not made any misrepresentation of mtsled to the employer. 9. Learned counsel appearing for the respondents/State submits that the State Government has extended the benefit of annual incremente onty to those persons who approached the Tribunai/Court. The Tribunal has not passed a general order to grant benefit to alt the stmilarly aituated persons. Thus, the impugned orders arejust and proper. 10. The respondent-authorities have not foltowed the principles cf natural justice and the impugned acAion has been taken without affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioners. The practice of passin®order, involving civil consequences, without show cause notice ©rwithout affording an opportunity, is condemned. 11. The Supreme Court in Sahib Ram Vs. State of Haryana and others1 , in para 5 hetd, as under: "5. However, it is not on account of any misrepresentation made by the appellant that the beneflt of higher pay scate was given to him but by wrong construction made by the ftincipat for which the appeitant cannot be held to be at fautt. Under the circumstances, the amount paid tiil date may not be recovered from the appeiSant." {1995 Supp (1) SCO 20) ,^p^rss^i 13 12. The Supreme Court in P. Tulsidas and othens Vs. Oovemment of A.P. and others , observed that the benefrt accrued earlier by vmy of grant of higher pay or revised pay, cannot be taken aw^ay as the same is viotetive of Articte 14 and 16 of the Constjtution of India bejng arbitrary, unreasonabte and expropriatory. 13. In a similar issue, asto whether recovery of excess paymenk for no feult of the employee can be made without foilowlng the principies of natural justice, Hon'ble Supreme Court in Syed Abdyl Qadtr ancl others vs. State of Bihar and others3, having consjdered at( the aspects of the - matter and the decisions rendered by the Supreme Court In the past, obser^ed as under: "57. This Court, in a catena of decisfons, has granted leiief against recovery of excess payment of emolumente/aSlowances if (a) tiie excess amount was not paid on account of any misrepresentation or fraud on the part of the employee, and (b) Jf such excess payment was made by the empioyer by appiying a wrong principle for calcutating the pay/allowance or on the basis of a particular interpretation of rule/order, whjch is subsequently found fo be erroneous. 58. The relief against recovery is granted by courts not because of any right in Itie empioyees, but in equify. exerclsjng judicial djscretion to redeve the empioyees from the harciship that will be caused if recovery is ordered. But, if in a given case, it te proved that the empioyee had knowiedge that ttie payment received was In excess ot' what was due or wron^y paid, or in cases where tho error is d©t©ctedor correc^ed within a short tim© of wrong payment, the matter being Jn the reatm ef judicial discretion, courts may, on the facts and circumstances of any particular case, order for recovery of the anioynt paid in exoess. See Sahib Ram v. State of Haryana^ Shyam Babu Verma v. Union of Indja, Union of Indla v. M. Bhaskar, V. Gangaram v. Director, Coi. B.J.Akkara (Retd.) v. Govt. of India, Purshottam Lal Das v. State of Bihar, Punjab National Bank v. Manjeet Singh and Bihar SEB v. Bijay Bhadur." 14. It is well settied that even legislature cannot djrectiy overrule, reverse or override the judicial pronouncements. In the present case the State Government by statutory instructjons has attempted to set at naught the {A.I.R. 2003 SC 43} 3 (2009) 3 SCC 475 /c^% ff ^^.. y "?^^ B ^ 'v'"-^^ u Ay '•^.^ .y ^l judidal order passed by the Tribunal in Malyadeen Verma (supra), B. L. Goyal (supra). 15. The Supreme Court in A. Manjula Bhashini and others Vs. Managing Director, Andhra Pradesh Women's Cooperative Rnance Corporation Limited and another has he!d as under: "68. It is also wett settted that the legistature cannot by bare declaration, without anything more, directly overrule, revers©or override a judlcial decision. However it can, in exercise of the pfenary powers conferred upon it by ArticSes 245 andl 246 of the Constitution, render a judicial decision ineffective by enading a valid law fundamentaiiy altering or changing the conditions on which such a decision is based. Such iaw can also be given retrospective effect with a deeming date or with ©ffectfrom a particular date. The question whether the legisiature possesses the power to enact law apparentiy affecting pre-existing judgment or amend the existing law which has already been interpreted by the Court 'm a particular manner, has be©nconsidered jn several cases." 16. tn view of foregoing, the impugned orders dated 8.6.2009, whereunder the increments granted eariier have been withdrawn, are quashed. If any recovery has been made pursuant thereto, the sam® is atso quashed and the petitioners are entitled to the said amount of recovery. 17. The petitions are allowed to the above extent. No order asto costs. Sd/- Satish K. Agnihotri Judge Arun (2009) 8 SCC 431