Allowed

Khilavan Prasad Vastrakar v. State of Chhattisgarh and Ors.

Chhattisgarh HC3 Feb 2011WPS/2704/2010

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court quashed an order directing the petitioner to recover excess salary without affording him an opportunity of hearing. The court held that such proceedings violate natural justice principles, regardless of any standard printed undertaking signed by the employee.

What did the court decide?

The impugned order for recovery was quashed, and it was directed that the petitioner must be afforded a proper opportunity of hearing before any action is taken to recover alleged amounts.

Khilavan Prasad Vastrakar Vs State of… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Chhattisgarh HC (2011)

¶1

SINGLE BENCH

¶2

IN THE HON’ BLE HIGH COURT OE CHHATTISGARH AT BILAS PUR W.P. (S) NO. rQ?/&L/ /201o

¶3

¶4

¶5

PETITIONER Khilavan Prasad Vastrakar, 'Ram S/o Late Shri Sevak Vastrakar, aged about 60 years, R/ o Quarter No. Palash—SO, Rajkishore Nagar, Bilaspur (C^.G.) VERSUS RE S S PONDENT S The State o f Chhattisgarh through^- i ts Secretary , Departmeht of Forest , Secretariate, D.K.S. Building , Raipur (C^.G. ) The Chief Conservator of Forest (Vetan Nirdharan Avam Pension Prakosta) , Raipur (C^.G.) The Divisional Forest Officer (D.F.O.) , Korba Division , Distt . Korba (C.G.) The Joint Director, (Treasuries Account and a Pension) ,Bilaspur Division Bilaspur (C^.G.) The District Treasury Officer, Distt. Korba (C.G.)

¶6

RE S S PONDENT S

¶7

WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF~THE

¶8

CONSTITUTION OF INDIA N

¶9

¶10

H!GH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

¶11

WRIT PETITION (S) NO. 2704 OF 2010

¶12

Petitioner

¶13

Khilavan Prasad Vastrakar

¶14

Versus

¶15

Respondents The State of Chhattisgarh & Others

¶16

WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA

¶17

(SB : Hon’ble Mr. Satish K. Agnihotri, J.)

¶18

Present :- Shri Sameer Behar, Advocate for the petitioner. Shri P.K.Bhaduri, Panel Lawyer forthe State.

¶19

ORDER (ORAL) ‘ {Passed^{on03“dayofFebruary,2011)}

¶20

Challenge in this petition ls tO the order dated 3.4.2010 (Annexure P-1), whereby the benefits of higher pay scale granted to the petitioner w.e.f. 1.1.1986 has been withdrawn with a direction to recover the amount.

¶21

Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner^{wasappointedonthe} post^{ofForestGuardon12.05.1970} by the Divisional Forest Officer, Sahdol. Thereafter, he was promoted to the post of Forester vide order dated 21 5.2007, subsequently he was further promoted to the post of Dy. Forest Ranger by order dated 10.10.2008. The petitioner was granted pay scale whioh was in accordance with law. The authorities’without affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner,^directed to recover the amount, vide impugned order dated 3.4.201 O. Shri Behar, further submits that the petitioner has not been afforded any opportunity to put forward his case and explain that he was granted^a pay^{scalewhichwasinaccordancewithlaw.Ontheother} hand. Shri Bhaduri, learned State counsel submits that the pay scale

¶22

granted^tothe petitioner^{waswrongiymedandassuchtheimpugned} order for recovery of the excess amount to the tune of Rs. 65,899!paid^tothe petitioner,^hasbeen passed.

¶23

¶24

Be that as it may, the question asto whether, the petitioner was paid excess amount or proper amount, could not have been determined in absence of opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. Once, the petitioner has been granted the payment, he is entitied to every opportunity to explain and put ton/yard his case before the State takes an adverse decision holding that the excess payment was made and recovery thereafter.

¶25

The contention Of Shri Bhaduri, that the petitioner had given an undertaking to refund the money, if it is found excess, cannot change the nature of affording opportunity to the petitioner to put forward his case. Even otherwise, the undertakings given in Annexure R—1 & R-2 are in printed form, where it appears that signatures have been obtained by all the employees. Thus, the order passed by the authorities for recovery of excess amount is unsustainable in law. 6. This Court in Kanhaiya Singh Netam v. Madhya Pradesh Rajya Van Vikas Nigam Ltd. & Others’ observedas under :

¶26

“1 2. ln a similar issue, asto whether recovery of excess payment for no fault of the employee can be made without following the principles of^natural justice Hon’ble Supreme Court in Syed Abdel Qadir^{andothersvs.StateofBiharandothers2,} having considered all the aspects of the matter and the decisions rendered by the Supreme^Court in the past, observed as under :

¶27

“57. This Court, in a catena of decisions, has granted relief against recovery of excess payment of emoluments/allowances if (a) the excess amount was not paid^on

¶28

1 2010(2)c.e.L.J. 221 2 (2009)^3scc475

\ l

account of any misrepresentation or fraud on the partof the employee, and (b) if such excess payment was made by the employet by applying a wrong principle for calculating the or on the pay/allowance basis cf a parllcular lnterprelatieh 6f rule/order, which is subsequently found to be erroneous.

¶33

The relief against recovery is granted by couns not because of any right in the employees, but in equity, exercising judicial discretion to relieve the employees from the hardship that will be caused if recovery is ordered. But, if in a given case, it is proved that the employee had knowledge that the payment received was in excess of what was due or wrongly paid, or in cases where the error is detected or corrected within a short time of wrong payment, the matter being in the realm of judicial discretion, courts may, on the facts and circumstances of any particular case, order for recovery of the amount paid in excess. See Sahib Ram Vs. State of Haryana, Shyam Beau Verma Vs. Union of India; Union of India Vs. M. Bhaskar, V.Gangaram Vs. Director, Coi. B. J. Akkara (Retd) Vs. Govt. oflndia, Purshottam La! Das Vs. State of Bihar, Punjab National Bank Vs. Manjeet Singh " and Bihar SEB Vs. Blfay Bhadur.

¶34

ln view of foregoing, the impugned order dated 3.4.2010 (Annexure P-1) is quashed. lf any action to reduce or to recover^{altegedamount} is taken, the same shall not be done without affording proper opportunity of hearing to the petitioner.^{Theexcessamount,} if has already been recovered, the same^{shallberefundedtothe} petitioner forthwith.

¶35

Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed^{totheabove-extent.Noorder} asto costs.

¶36

Sd/—

¶37

SATISH K. AGNH-IOTRI Judge

¶38

ashok,

Khilavan Prasad Vastrakar v. State of Chhattisgarh and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Khilavan Prasad Vastrakar v. State of Chhattisgarh and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Dasrathi Sahu Vs State of Chhattisgarh and Anr.

State of Chhattisgarh and Ano. Vs Dhaniram

Derha Ram Manikpuri Vs State of Chhattisgarh and Ors.

Anusuiya Bai Dhruv Vs C.G. Gramin Bank and Aother

Madhukar Simankar Vs State of C.G. and Ors.

Smt. Shashi Ahuja Vs State of Chhattisgarh and Ors.