H1GH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASP‘UR @ PETETIONER : 1. D.N.Dewangan, aged about 41 years, Sfo Late Shri Kapil Dev Dewangem, Occupation — Assistant Sub Inspector wasted at Poiice Omce Janjgir~Champa (CfGf) Chandramani Rathore, age<i about 43 yeam, Sky Late Shri Rjkhiram Rathore, Owupaticu — Assisiant Sub Inspector, posted at Poiice Ofme Janjgir—Champa (CG) VERSUS . The State of Chhaitisgarh, Tbmug'h the Secretzuy, Finance Degw‘nnent, D.K.S. Building, Distt. - Raipur (C G) 2. State of Madhya ‘r‘tédéQ, thmugh she Secretary, Home Depanmem, Vailabh BhawaiL Bhepal (MP) AdditionaE {2’ Poiice Mahamdeshak Administration, Poiice Head Quarter, Raipur (CG) 4. Superintendent ofPolice, ianjgir-Distt. .Earijgir- Champa (CG) WRIT PETITION N0. 1293 0f2003 RESPONDENTS WRIT PETI'i‘ION UNDER ARTICLE 2261227 OF THE Cf)NSTITUT}TON OF INDIA SB: Hon’bie Shri Satish K. Agnihotljy}. Present: Shri Sunit Sahu, Advocate for the petitioners Smt. Smite Ghai, Patiel Lawyer f0} the Stateitespoadent N0. i, 3 anti 4. n ORAL ORDER (Passed on?)7$ day of August, 2008) 1. The present petition, filed under Atticie 226/227 of the Constitution of India, impugns the. order dated 23.08.2001 (Annexure A/l) whereby the State authorities have directed to recover the ad-hOc increment of Rs. 70/— pm. paid to the petitioners and deposit the arrears ofthe same in lump sum. The indisputable facts, in nutshell, are that the petitioners, working as Assistant Sub Inspector in Police Department were granted ad—hoc increment of Rs. 7O pm. Vide order 28.8.2000 (Annexare A/2). Thereafter, . the ad-hcc increment so gamed to the peti’tioners were withcirawn and the petitioners were directed to deposit the same, alongwith arrears, on 23.03.2001 (Armexure A-l) 3. Being aggrievec}, me petitioners have frled this petjiion praying that the impugned order dated 23.08.2001 (Annexure P/l) for recovery of ad-hoc increments mounting to Rs. 27,1 12/- and 25,596/— respectively, without affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioners to put iimNard their cases, is illegal, arbitrary and unreasonable. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that there is no fauit on the part of the petitioners and the amount was paid to them in accordance with the pay scales, revised and fixed by the respondents from time to time. The respondents cannot recover the amount. already paid to the petitioners, that too without following the principles of natural justice. 5. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the respondents/State submits that since the pay of the petitioner was iixed contrary to the provisions and on scrutiny. it was found that excess amount has been paid, the same can be recovered from the petitioners without affording an opportunity of hearing. 6. The Supreme Court, in the case of Sahib Ram Vs. Slate QfHaryana and others} , in para 5 has held as under: “5.....However, it is not on account of any misrepresentation made by the appeilant that the benefit of higher" pay scale was given to him but by wrong construction made by the Principal for which the appeliant earmot he held to he at fault. Under the circumstances the amount paid till date may not be recovered from the appellant.” ‘i 7. Further, in the matter of Shyam Baht! Verma and others v. Union oflndz'a and othersz, the Supreme Court has held as under: “ll. Although we have held that the petitioners were entitled oniy to the pay scale of Rs. 339-486 in terms of the recommendations of the Third Pay Commission w.e.f January i, 1973 and only atter the period of 10 years, they became entitled to the pay scale of Rs. 330-560 but as they have i i995 Supp (1) soc 2o g 1994 (2) soc 52x \ \ -3- @ received the scale of Rs. 330-560 since 1973 due to n0 fault of theirs and that sca!e is being reduced in the year 1984 with effect frqm January 1, 1973, it shall be only jus‘t and proper not to recover any excess amount. which has already been paid to them. Accordingly, we direct that no steps sheuld be taken m recover or to adjust any excess amouni paid to the yetitioners due m me faul‘t of the respotidents, the petitioners beizig in no way responsible for the same.” 8: This Couit, in the caSe of Vidyaéhar Tiwari Vs. The State of Chham'sgaxh 8c Otlgers3, has held that the excess payment, if any, made to the petitioner, when he was not at fault and the ameunt received by him might have been, used by adjusting himself accordingly treating the same as his Saiary. At this stage, directing recovery of the alleged excese amcunt iiom the petitioners will not be just and proper. in View ofthe foregoing and as admitted by learned counsel appearing for both the parties, this petition is ailowed in the terms of the order passed in the case of Vidyadhar Tiwari (supra) i.e. the impugned order dated 23.08.2001 (Annexure A/l) regarding recovery of Rs. 27,112/— and Rs. 259596/- from the petitioners is hereby quashed. The petitioners are entitled to ad-hoc increment, amount without any deduction. 10 1‘ ‘ ‘ . x Consequently, MON)? N0. 1185 0f2003, stands disposedot‘. ‘3 ‘ ‘ I i / 3 2006 (l) MPH’T 165 (CG) /, i . , o ° .