BHAIRO PRASAD MISHRA Vs. STATE OF CHHATTISGARH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner has filed this writ petition against the order of recovery dtd. 25/1/2022 (Annexure P/1) issued by the respondent No. 3 by which the petitioner has been directed to pay the amount of Rs.4,76,708.00 which is paid in excess to the petitioner who retired from the post of Sub Inspector on 31/12/2021.

(2.) From the documents, it is clear that the respondent No. 3 after the retirement of the petitioner has issued an order of recovery of excess payment to the tune of Rs.4,76,708.00 showing the wrong pay fixation from 1/1/1996 that continued till his retirement i.e., on 31/12/2021 on the post of Sub Inspector. This order has been assailed by the petitioner by filing the instant writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that so called erroneous pay fixation occurred on the default of their official staff and finally after lapse of 29 years of his service, respondent No. 3 issued the order impugned for recovery of so called excess payment to the tune of Rs.4,76,708.00 without there being any prior notice or intimation He would further submit that recovery of alleged excess amount is against the law in view of the decision rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of State of Punjab v. Rafiq Masih (While Washer), reported in 2015 (4) SCC 334. He would further submit that if the amount of Rs.4,76,708.00 was directed to be refunded, it will be irreparable loss to the petitioner as it would amount to unjust, therefore, the recovery order dtd. 25/1/2022 (Annexure P/1) kindly be quashed.