VIDDYACHARAN KURREY Vs. STATE OF CHHATTISGARH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The challenge in this petition is to the order dated 02.01.2018 (Annexure P/1) whereby the respondents have ordered for recovering an amount of Rs.1,69,910/- paid to the petitioner by way of excess payment.

(2.) The facts of the case is that, the petitioner is working as a Head Constable under the respondents which is a Class-III category post. It is said that the petitioner has been paid the benefit of Kramonnati (Time Bound Pay Scale) w.e.f. 26.02.2016 to 12.07.2017 erroneously and now after a period of about 2 years from the date of alleged erroneous payment being made, the respondents have now issued the impugned order seeking recovery of excess payment so made.

(3.) The contention of the petitioner is that, the petitioner has not made any misrepresentation so far as grant of Kramonnati is concerned. It is also the contention of the petitioner that it is not a case that the petitioner has been held responsible for receiving the same. Moreover, from the impugned order it appears that it is not just the petitioner alone against whom such orders have been passed. The impugned order Annexure P/1 reflects the names of 45 similarly placed person against whom similar orders have been passed. Lastly it is contended that the said action of recovery by the respondents is impermissible under the law in the light of the judgment of the Supreme Court in case of State of Punjab Vs. Rafiq Masih, 2015 (4) SCC 334.