LAWS(CHH)-2021-2-115

MEENA JOSEPH Vs. STATE OF CHHATTISGARH

Decided On February 18, 2021
Meena Joseph Appellant
V/S
STATE OF CHHATTISGARH Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The challenge in the present writ petition is to the order Annexure P- 1 which was issued in September, 2017 though a specific date is not reflected in the said order. The said order is an order of recovery for an amount of Rs. 2,57,311/- recoverable from the petitioner on the pretext that the petitioner has been given certain amount in excess to that she was otherwise entitled for and the said excess payment is for a period between 08.02.1991 till 30.06.2017.

(2.) At the outset, counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner is working on the post of Nursing Sister under the respondents and that she is in employment of the respondents from 1991 onwards and she is still has got few years of service left before retirement. The petitioner was abruptly vide Annexure P-1 in September, 2017 issued with a notice showing that she has been paid certain excess payment on account of certain erroneous fixation of pay to the tune of Rs. 2,57,311/- and erroneous fixation was for the period between 08.02.1991 to 30.06.2017. Counsel for the petitioner submits that before issuance of the said order there was no opportunity of hearing given to the petitioner so as to give an explanation to the alleged excess payment made to the petitioner. It is categorically stated by the counsel for the petitioner that the said payment was paid not just to the petitioner but it has been uniformally applied to all the Nursing Sisters under the respondents and as such there is no irregularity or error on the part of the respondents to the fixation of pay that was granted to the petitioner and as such the order of recovery is bad.

(3.) Counsel for the petitioner further submits that in any case there is no allegations of any misrepresentation or fraud played by the petitioner for getting the said erroneous fixation of pay, if any. Moreover, the same has been provided to the petitioner even it has been wrongly given on account of fault on the part of the respondents and petitioner bonafidely consumed the same. Even if it has been erroneously granted, the only recourse available with the respondents was rectificationof the error, but under no circumstances could the respondents be permitted to make any recovery from the salary or other dues payable to the petitioner. The petitioner refers to the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case State of Punjab and others etc. vs. Rafiq Masih (White Washer) etc. reported in 2015 AIR SCW 501. in support of her contentions.