iN-i HIGHCOURT WCHHATTK8ARM:BILASPUR WritPetition (S) No. 3628 of 2004 Petitioners 1. Hom Lal Sahu, S/o. Shri Keju Ram Sahu, aged about 43 years, resident cf ViUage BirMra, Post Ganaud Distrilst Raipur(CG). 2. Bhilcara Chand DOTangan, aged 43 years, R/o.- Wlage Kura, Bloctc Dharsivan, Distrid Raipur (CG). ResDondents Versus 1. The State Cf CWiateigarh, ttirou^ta the SecFstary, Deparftneot of School Educdion Mantralaya, D.K.S. BuiWng, Raipur(CG). 2) The Gommis^oner <rf InstrucBons, Raipur (CG). Public 3) The District Mahasamund. Education Officer, 4) The Jdnt Director, Public lnstiuctfo»K, Raipur DMsion, Raipur (CG). (Writ PeBUon under Aificte 226/227 of ttie Constitufion of India.) SinigleSifenct»;:Hon'bteMr. SatW»t<.Agnihotri,J. Preseht: Snrt.BrtwiKochar, sounsaltorttisp^tfenere. Shri P.K. Bhaduri, PWiel 1-awyer fw the State. ORM.CMTOER (Passed on thfe 9th day of S^teniber, 28OT) Th®petitionere were initially appoirted as ^tesi^tant Teachers ln^t|e Department of School Education for a probafion pwiod of two years and: thereafter their services were r^utaiized. Th* paysca*®vas fnted sit Rs;40CW500Cy-, in pursuance of the order dated 18-5-1989 pas»edt»y Depufy.Director, Publlc Instructions, Education U^ict Mahiffiamund. Msf a sudden by order dated 4-2-2002 (Annexure P/t) paased by th|e respondent No.3- Dlstrict EducaUoh OSScw, Mahaaamund, tt»| y Sca^ <^ Rs.4000/SOOQ/- was reduced to Rs.12CX)?-on the erowd that due te mistake the higher pay scale hasbeengranted. j .ldi^.;i.;J;-^:^JMj» ^- lis? sfrgs€a)zyi¥z i£K03S{t)<"i'>SS66lt ai»se fBweussfe^ sq »euues 'Aed pssiAai 10 <ed jeyfiiit jotuejfi ^o Aem Aq jeijjea peniaia lyaisq &tfi »8i|tpwussqo '^sjaifto pue -d'V *o »u8tuiuaAOO •A sjiaqio (MIB SBp|s|nj. •djo sseosifl ui ynoo suiajdns eiq.uoH sqj. (t ^}uej|8dd& eift uio^ psisAowi sq iou ABU! atep ifff piediunoiMe atft 'swuetsuunwio siftjspun •ijnet (B aq o( pjaq eq }ouueo (ue||9ddB aift qaqm J<y ledjgutJd aift Xq speiu uojjoruisuoo Buoj»Aq inq tuiq o»uaAtS SBM ®|BOSAed jsqBiq ^o tgsusq siifl leift tuetisdde eifl Aq epeiu uonepissaidajsitu Aue y> tunoaoB uo y»u si B '•ISASMOH "&. :.i8pun se piay seq s eued ui ^atffio pue eueAtBH lo a»e»s'SA tUBll qilBS P aseg aift ui iinoo suuajdns ejq.uoH ayi (9 •^ie'UaijetseNt uoipB p9uBnAMiai.frStip^qBuuB9i.)^»<ipnti<x^iio> Aue paptGiBB pu ai8M siauoffi^ aift ^i^ i^i^ ^ ^ si S'°N^P <^J^^ U<N^ NW ^U ^u^aiR^^^^ 8ui|M<y|B (noiffi^ W e3y»ussnea woys inoq^'S^8B|iasuo3i|U^fiui^^ japio Buissed ^o eogaeid ai^. -stauoiusd atft 01 fitiuBaii ip <)jUt^ioclc(B ue fiujpio^e viotflw ua3)Bt uaeq seq uogoe paufindU]! aifl pue saitsnf |aiit(BU ^o ^diauud etfl pamoijo^ ^ou SABI) saBpoiflnB »uapuodsa.>aqi (9 •lUStUABdSSSiK® paSaye siff &ip|eui jcy uogeuB(cbca jiai^ uuiqns o( uoch p9(|B3 pu ejaw sJst.Kiffiadwu. •sisuoiBiad «n<q uawfi SBM aatiou sswea Moys ou leiR 8114 S!^»alftSBtuqnss|B(S/s^«»puOd%^^(»J0^8u!.lB^ddelssuno^p8UJlB^^ (j? •aogsn?|Bfn}Bu jo seidiouud aft 6yjAwn<y vioifflw &ieuqBB®daifl fl» pisd jjlpeaite 'tunoi.ue 91(1 jaAooat toituea wqiuodsat 9t|i •affew ewA 'Aue ij 'it.ieuiAed^sstaxa siftiunoa ipKim uotqse p8uaas8ueaqse4uosB^oN •suil^siuBiJUoysiuapuodsajsiftAq pei^ pue pesiAW 'aejeas Aed «fliffl* eou^ucpoB U! uistit <4 pred si luncnue aifl pue siauosjtsd ai(t jo tied 81(1110 IpB} <ni S! alBifl IBI®^tuqns jsyynt jSGunog pau»B8fi •uoy>B-u! AB|d ^e^ pye ^»j)sn{ tennBU io ^dpyud si^ f9 aauBjidiMoa y> yxfK i<y (WteiaA «(jepjo qqt 'sn^l •jsuogssy stB ot epetu lusiuted 9i|| yi<Kp in^dxa o»^untwdetoAue 1^6 ^u sift iBift qwuc|ns sjauoflged w^ j^ fiuuBscN^ lasunoa psuee-i? ^; \sxs ^KX 10 't.?'^ V- Raitt same is violati<» of Arttefe 14 and 16 of the Constitution ef India being arbitrary, unreaswiabte and exj»opTiatory. 8) This Court, in the case of Vidyadhar Tiwari Vs. State of Chhattlsgarh & ottiers J»asheld ths* fbr the excess payment, ifany, mad® to the petiUoner, he was net at fault and ttieamount receh/ed hy him mght teve been used by adjusUng himselfaccordinfily treattng the same as his salary. At this stage, clirecUng recovery of tlie aUeged excess amount from the pensionary benefits ofthe peUtionerwitl not bejustand jxoper. 9) In view of the reasons mentiened herainabove, thte petitfon is attowed. The impugned order dated 4-2-%X)2 (Annexure P/1) tfirecting recovery on account of excess payment made to tfte petitioners, is tereby quashecL If the amount has been recovered, the petffioners ara enUUed to ttie said amount with inter^t at the rate of 6% per annum. However, tt is open to the respondents to take any step, if so advtsed, in accordance wtth taw fottowing basic prtnciples of naturat justice. No order asto co^s. Sd/- . ., SatisU^A?Dalotn Judge_ !:1 1 2008 (1) MPHT 105 (CG)