MAKHIYAR RAM BADAIK Vs. STATE OF CHHATTISGARH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition is directed against the order dated 21-2-2006 (Annexure P-1) passed by the Respondent No. 5 on the basis of letter dated 21-12-2005 of the Joint Director, (Treasury & Accounts), Bilaspur, making recovery of Rs. 3,68,911/- from the Petitioner stating that the said amount has been paid in excess to the Petitioner towards his salary during the period from 1-4-1981 to 31-3-2005 while he was in service. The Petitioner has also raised claim for payment of retiral dues of the amount of Rs. 3,86,043/-.

(2.) Assailing the correctness and validity of the order passed by the Respondents in making recovery from the amount of retiral dues of the Petitioner, Learned Counsel for the Petitioner submitted that the action of the Respondents is arbitrary firstly for the reason that the impugned action of recovery on the basis of alleged excess payment has been taken without affording any opportunity of hearing to the Petitioner, which is violative of the principles of natural justice. The second limb of submission of Learned Counsel for the Petitioner is that while the Petitioner was in service, he was paid salary on the basis of various pay fixations done from time to time on account of revision of pay scales. Learned Counsel for the Petitioner argued that in the absence of there being any case of the Respondents that the excess payment was result of any fraud or misrepresentation on the part of the Petitioner, whatsoever payments have already been made to the Petitioner over such a long period from 1-4-1981 to 31-3-2005, i.e., almost 25 years, could not be recovered from the Petitioner at the time of his retirement and the same would result in serious and grave hardship, as the Petitioner is a retired Teacher. Learned Counsel for the Petitioner then submits that it is not a case where the Petitioner received higher salary knowing fully well that he was not entitled to it. therefore, the Respondents are stopped from not making such a huge amount of recovery that too from the retiral dues of the Petitioner. Learned Counsel for the Petitioner relies upon the decisions in the cases of Sahib Ram v. State of Haryana and Ors., 1995 Supp1 SCC 20, Syed Abdul Qadir and Ors. v. State of Bihar and Ors., 2009 3 SCC 475 and the order passed by this Court in the case of Vidyadhar Tiwari v. The State of Chhattisgarh and Ors.,2006 1 MPHT 105 (CG).

(3.) On the other hand, submission of Learned Counsel for Respondent No. 2 is that as the recovery has been made by the Respondent Nos. 1 and 3 to 5, the action is required to be taken against the concerned Respondent.