HEGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR W. P. (S) No. 4960 of 2006 Petitioner Teklal Mishras son of late Shri Ganganand Piasad Mishra, aged about 61 years. retired Driver. resident of Shanti Nagar, Sakari, Distt. Bilaspur (C.G.) Versus Respondems 1. The State of Chhattisgarh, Throug: it's Secretary, Depamnent of Forest. D.K.5. Bhavan. Raipur (C.G.) 2. The Divisional Fotest Officer. Bilaspur Forest Division, Distt‘ BiiaspuHCG.) 3. The Joiin Director (Treasuries. Accounts and Pension) Biiaspur Division, Distt. Biiaspur (03.). The District Treasuty Ofncer. Distt. Biiaspur (C.G.) WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLES 2261227 OF THE COSTlTUTiON QF MDIA SB: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Satish K. Agnihotri L’,’ Shri Sameer Behar, Advocate for the petitioner. X Smt. Anju Abuja, Deputy Govt. Advomie for the respondents. . QM (Passed on this 23’“ day or Aprii, 2007) \ ‘5 1. By this petition‘ the petitioner has prayed for a suitable writ or ‘ direction ta quash the order dated 27‘“ Jury, 2005 (Anneme PM), passed by the respondent No.2 directing for recovery of a sum of Rs. 94‘812I-. from the retirai dues of die petitioner. because this amount was wrongly paid to the petitioner owing to incorrect fixation of salary. 2. The brief facts. in nutsheii. are that the petitioner was appointed on the post of Driver on fixed pay w.e.f. 12.3.1968. Thereafter. since 1.3.1977 the petitioner's services were reguiarized and he was granted regular pay scale. The salary of the petitioner was revised, . time to time and he was granted increments. The petitioner was retired from service on attaining the age of superannuation w.e.f. 31.7.2005. Aner retirement of the petitioner from service. the respondent No.2 passed the order dated 27.7.2005 (Annexure P/1) directing for one time recovery of Rs. 94,81‘21- from the retiral dues of the petitioner. as this amount was paid due to wrong fixation of pay of the petitioner. . Shri Sameer Behar. teamed counsei appearing for the petitioner submits that there is no fauit on the part of the petitioner. as the petitioner was getting the satary, as fixed from time to time, by the respondents. After a period of 30 years, the respondents cannot recover the amount‘ if any. from the retiral dues of the petitioner. without affording'an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. The respondents have also not proved that the eXcess payment was made after giving any opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. To substantiate his submissions. teamed counsei appearing for the petitioner cited a decision of this Court in the case of Vidya Shankar Tiwari Vs. State of MP. (Now State of Chhattisgarh) and others, reported in zoos (2') M.P.H.T. 31 (cs). . in the case of Vidya Shankar Tiwari (Supra), after a period of four ‘ years from the date of fixation of sataryof the petitioner, he was directed to deposit the excess amount. This Court held that for the mistake of the respondent/empioyer. the petitioner could not be penalized without foltowing principles of natural justice. Before asking the petitioner for making refund of extra payment. no opportunity of hearing was afforded to the petitioner. The petitioner had adiusted himsetf to the facts of the case and had utilized me money what was legally and duly paid to him. No opportunity of hearing was given to the petitioner before the impugned order was passed and as such the same is unreasonable. arbitraly and deserves to be quashed. . in view of the fgregoing‘ this petition is ailowed. The impugned order dated 27.7.2005 (Annexure PI1) is quashed. The respondents are directed to refund the amount. if any. recovered pursuant to the order dated 27.7.2005 from the petitioner. The amount‘ if any. recouered from the petitioner snail carry the interest as applicable in savings bank account of nationaiized bank, from the date of Thekur recovery tiii its payment. No order as to costs. Sd/— Satish K. Agnihotri Judge