NIRANJAN LAL CHANDRAWANSHI Vs. STATE OF CHHATTISGARH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The challenge in the present writ petition is to the impugned order Annexure (P-1) dated 01.03.2019 whereby the order of recovery to the tune of Rs. 63,604/- has been ordered to be recovered on account of certain excess payment made to the petitioner by way of allowance paid for working in Naxalite Area which the petitioner has said to be entitled to.

(2.) The contention of the petitioner is that when the petitioner has retired from the service w.e.f. 30.10.2016, the said allowance known as the Naxalite duty allowance was paid to the petitioner during the period from March, 2013 to May, 2015. The contention of the petitioner is that the said payment has not been paid to the petitioner on account of any misrepresentation or fraud on his part and the same has also been paid by the department not just to petitioner but to all the officers who were in that area at that point of time. He further submits that now after a period of more than 2 and - 1/2 years from the date of the petitioner's retirement, they have issued an order of recovery. The said action is impermissible under law in the light of the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of State of Punjab & Others etc. Vs. Rafiq Masih(White Washer) etc., reported in 2015 AIR SCW 501. Further contention of the petitioner is that the said order of recovery is also bad in law. For the reasons same has been issued without following basic principles of natural justice in as much as, no opportunity of hearing was given.

(3.) The State counsel on the contrary submits that the petitioner is a Class- I Officer and that he has received the said benefit which he was otherwise not entitled for. That it is only recently that the State Government came to know that it has been wrongly paid to the petitioner and similarly placed persons and therefore, they have passed the order of recovery which cannot be said to be bad in law. State counsel further contented that even otherwise the order is not bad in law for the reason that while making payment itself there was the condition of same being recoverable, if it is at a later stage found erroneously paid. Thus Prayed for the dismissal of the writ petition.