DHIMRA SINGH DHURVE Vs. STATE OF CHHATTISGARH,

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Challenge in the present Writ Petition is to the order dated 18.6.2010 (Annexure P-1) whereby the Respondents have ordered for recovery of an amount of Rs.34,611/- from the Gratuity payable to the Petitioner on his superannuation.

(2.) Learned Counsel for the Petitioner submits that the Petitioner has been retired from the office of the Respondents on 30.4.2010 from the post of Head Master of the Boys Hostel, Chingnar, Block Farasgaon, District Bastar. According to the Counsel for the Petitioner, after the retirement though all the other retiral dues have been released to the Petitioner, however, vide order dated 18.6.2010 (Annexure P-1) a decision has been taken for recovery of an amount of Rs.34,611/- which was allegedly paid to the Petitioner in excess. Learned Counsel for the Petitioner submits that the said excess amount received, if at all, was not on account of any misrepresentation or fraud played by the Petitioner but it was on account of the error on the part of the Respondents and therefore at best the Respondents could have only rectified the mistake but recovery could not have been made. He next submits that the law in this regard stands fully settled by the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Punjab and Others v. Rafiq Masih (White Washer) and Others [2015 (4) SCC 334].

(3.) Learned Counsel for the State, however, opposes the Writ Petition, on the ground that any excess amount which has been paid to the Petitioner, the State is liable to recover the same for the reason that the said amount cannot be given to the Petitioner, if he is legally otherwise not entitled for the same, and prays for the dismissal of the Writ Petition.