HIGH COURF‘OF CHHATTISGARH AT EIMSWR WxitPetition No. 4432 of 1995 Petitioner Vidya Shankar 'l‘iwari, aged about years, son of‘Shri B. P. ’I‘iwari, Assistant Teacher, Nagarpalika Ucchatar Madhyamjk Shala, Dhamtari, Disirict— Raipur, MP; (Now C.G.) 1. The State of Madhya Pradesh, thmugh, Secmtary, . School Education, Vallabh Bhawan, Bhopal (Now State of Chhathsgarh Mammlaya Ralpur) Jomt Dnoctor, Pubhc Instrucnons, Vexsus Respondents M P Rmpur D1v1s10n, Ralpur 3. Chmf Mummpal omcer Nagatpahka Panshad Dhamtan Dlsumt Ralpur, M P (now c G) Avaslya Semor Auditor, Local Funds Audit Nagmpm Panshad Dhnmtan, Dxsmct- Ralpur, M P (Now CG) SMe Bench Hon’ble Mr Justlcc Satlsh K mihohi J Mr Awadh ’I‘npatln, Advocatc for the petmoner Mr Pankaj Shnvastava, Panel lawyer for Respondents No 1 and 2 Mr Yashwant Smgh Thakur Advocate for Respondents No. 3 and 4. " ORAL ORDER r ( 231d December, 2005) The following order, of the Court was passed by 3 ll h K. Apihotrl J Heard. ~ " The petitioner was appointed as Peon on the pay scale of Rs. 125- 15.0 vide onier dated 25.8.1980 (Annekme’ P/3) on pmban‘on $1; a period of two years. Vida order dated 19.24983 (Annexme‘ P/4) the etitioner-was conhnned on the post of Peon after compleh‘on of successfu probanon penod Vde order dated 15 1 1990 (Annexure PIS) the Respondent No 3 appomted the petitioner pursuant to the mcommendatlon dated 29.12.1989 of the Distnct‘ Selection , p l Committee on the post of Assistant Teacher (Lab Assistant) at the pay i scale of Rs. Rs. 975-1650 (975-25-1000-30-1210~40-145O 50-1650). Thereafter the services of the peu'tioner was con&med on the post of 1650. He referred the recommendation, of the District Selection \ Committee ‘ dated \ @ . 29. 12.1989 (Annexum R-3/ 2) whiCh menn'ons that the petitioner was ‘mcommended for appointment on the post of Lab Assistant. It was further contended that the orders dated 15. 1. 190 and 16.9. 1992 wexe passed inadvertently by mietake. Oh quexy,leamed counsel informed that ‘no action has been taken against the o$cer who had passed the orders dated 15.1.1990‘ and 16.9.1992 themby the petitioner was promoted and continued on the post of Assistant Teacher and the pay scale of the Assistant Teacher was accotdingly given. It was next contended that there was no post of Assistant Teacher 1n the sta$ng pattern of the school. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and perusing records appended to the petition as well as to the return, it is eviient that the petitioner was appointed as Assistant'l‘eacher (Lab Assistant) vide order dated 15.1.1990. The petitioner was condlmed on the post of Assistant Teacher vide order dated 16.9.1992. The petitioner has worked as Assistant Teacher and was paid salary of the Assistant Teacher, which is not disputed by learned counsel for the respondents also. Even otherwise, the principle of natural justice has also not been complied with. The petitioner had bonahde accepted the post and obtained salary on the basis of unambiguous and clear orders dated 15.1.1990 and 16.9.1992 passed by the Respondent No.3; The petiu‘oner had not made any misrepresentation to obtain the post of Assistant Teacher and consequently salary thereof. If there was any mistake, the same was committed by the Respondent No.3. For the mistake of the respondent/employer, the petitioner could not be penalized without folldwing principles of natural justice Before asking the petitioner for making refund of extra payment no opportunity of hearing was ad‘orded to the petitioner The petitioner had adjusted himself to the facts of the case and had utilized the money what was legally and duly paid to him. No opportunity of hearing was given to the petitioner before the impugned order dated 17.5. 1996 was passed and as such the same is umeasonable, arbiuaxy and deserves to be quashed. Learned counsel for the petiiioner has cited decision of the Supreme Court in Sahib Ram Vs. State of Haryana & others, (1995 Supp (1) S.C.C. 18) Whelein it was held that :- “Admittediy the appellant does not possess the required educational qualifications, Under the cirwmstanoes the appellant would not be entitled to the relaxation The Principal erred in granting him the relaxation Since the date of relaxation the appellant had been paid his salary on the revised scale. However, it is not on amount of any nu'srepresentation made by the appellant that the benefit of the higher pay scale was given to him but by wrong construction made by the Principal for which the appellant cannot be held to be at fault. Under the cirwmstances the amount paid till date may not be recoveredfrom the appellant.” For the reasons stated above, in the facts and circumstances of the case, the petition is allowed. The impugned otder dated 17.5.1996 (Annexure P/ 1) is quashed. No otder as to costs. Sd/— SATISH K. AGNIHom Judge