ggmumam §§$§§§$§§ gagdwamJdqgéwiw ,. §wg g mqwddag a 3am g gagghgmq widgw w N. m§§3w3‘ 3$3m§ i jdmw mqg mwggawuj idqwa g E 3.243 agdg avs‘jmu3mm g g § ; E mydy ww‘a $ ww. mg w g gi §2/ kw HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH : BILASPUR Sin le'Bench: Hon’hie Shri Manindra Mohan Shrivastava J. WRIT PETITION (Si Presenti - Shri H.S. Ahluwalia, counsei for the petitioner. Shri Sushi! Dubey, Government Advocate for the State. ORAL ORDER (Passed on 10‘“ of May, 2011 ) This petition has been med by the petitioner aggrieved by recovery order , (Annexure N1) dated 26i9/98. By the said order, an amouht of Rs.15,990i- has been recovered from the petitioner stating that the amount has been paid in excess to the petitioner and that was not admissible to him. X 2. The petitioner Wes initially appointed on 22/3/1 958 as Assistant Teacher in the School Education Department. While the petitioner was continuing in service, Chaudhary pay scaie Was made applicable under the recommendation of Chauclhary Pay Commission, which was made applicable vide Government Circular dated 3/311983 under which. benefits were admissible w.e.f. 1/4/1 981 . The pay of the petitioner was also fixed in the higher pay scale and on the basis of that fixation, saiary was paid to the petitioner by giving benetit of Ruie 22 D of the Fundamental Rules. The petitioner continued to draw salary on the basis of such hxation of pay untii he retired upon attaining the age of superannuation on 31l12l97. ‘After retirement at the time of fixation of pension, it was noted by the Joint Director, Accounts, Treasury and Pension that the petitioner was wrongly granted benefit of Personal 'Pay under the Fundamental Ruies 22~ D to which, ‘1‘, PETITIONER Ramdas Manikpuri RESPGNDENTS Versus the petitioner was not entitled to and on the basis of that, recovery has been made. 3. Assailing the aforesaid action of recovery, iearned counsel for the ., petitioner submitted that the petitioner was granted benem of revised pay scale o, under recommendation of Chaudhary Pay Commission on the basis of the order of the State Government circular dated 3/3/1983. He further submits that the- H / ompetent authority had fixed the pay of the petitione in the appropriate pay c r scale acrdin to his ow undersaning of he appiicability of t ule an the cog n td t he rs d petitioner neither committed raud nor misrepresented. He further submit tha once the payments have been made to the petitioner, t same coul no b he d t e subsequentiy recovered, even after it is found that the same was wrongly extended, uless it is found to be a case of fraUd or misrepresentation. He n further ubmits that the impugned recovery has been ordered without any fraud s or misrpresentation on the part of the petitioner. in support of his submission, e he relied upon the order of this Court dated 31/08/1 passed in .P.(S 200 W) No.3710/05 in the case of Shyamlai Dewangan V. State of Chhattisgarh and , ’, others wherein, on identical facts situation, it has been held that payments which \x were made, could not be recovered. s 4. 0n the other hand, learne state counsel submits that the etitioner was d p wrongiy granted benefit of additnaspay f Rs.25 per month, at the time f iol o o fixation of pay in the Chaudhary Pay Scale under orders f the Stat o e Government, issued on 5/3/83. He submits that in view of provisions contained in x the rules under which, revised pay scale was granted, the petitioner was not entitled to benefit of Rule 22 D in the matter of hxation of pay in the revised‘pay . scale. At the time, when the petitioner‘s pension case was scrutinized, grant of }vi , ~ f s t » “u g7 benefit of pay under Rule 22 D and additional pay of Rs.25/— per month wasrnot iii admissible and wrongly granted and therefore, recovery has been ordered. V» 5. in the identical case of Shyamlal Dewangan (Supra), relying upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Sahib Ram v. State of Harvana and others, 1995 Supp (1) SCC 18 and Vidvadhar Tiwari v. State of C.G. and others, 2006 (1.) MPHT 105, it has been heid that even where some excess jpayment has been made, unless it is found to be a case of fraud or misrepresentation, the recovery could not be made. The present case is squarely covered by the aforesaid decision. 6. ln the opinion of this Court, the order of recovery is iilegal. The same is , therefore required to be set aside and is accordingly set aside. The amount which has been recovered from the petitioner, shall be refunded to the petitioner forthwith without any delay, with interest at the rate of 6% per annum. 7. With the aforesaid observations, the petition is finally disposed off. Sdl- la. J Maningra Mahan Shrivastava, grjudge "K