Allowed

Satyanarayan Mishra v. State Govt.of Chhattisgarh And Ors.

Chhattisgarh HC17 Oct 2013WPS/2920/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Single judge quashed orders seeking recovery of excess pension payments from a retired lecturer. Relying on Supreme Court precedents, the court held that recovery causes undue hardship for retired employees who received excess payment in good faith due to administrative negligence.

What did the court decide?

Recovery orders dated 29-2-2012 and 25-1-2012 for Rs. 35,842 and Rs. 462 quashed; petitioner's pension case finalized without insisting on payment.

Satyanarayan Mishra Vs State Govt.of… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Chhattisgarh HC (2013)

¶1

¶2

INTHEHON'BLE HIGH COURT OF CHHAmSGARH ATBILASPUR (C.G.t

¶3

W.P. (S)No..A-^^0 2012

¶4

Satyanarayan Mishra, aged 63 Years, S/o Late,,Shri B. .Bhuneshwar Prasad Mishra, ;Refired Lecturer, Govt. Higher Secondary School, ^ Befeeda,s^^'^{Distt.BalodC.G.} "^lc4<^

¶5

PETITIONER

¶6

/^"^i'?Z^
^''•^^••%^'"'
•^^^
^6""
RESPONDENTS

¶7

VERSUS

¶8

StateGovt. ofC.G. Through- The Secretary, •Wt'al 1^ a< 7a'r<^tpA^-i^l- (School^Education DeBartm^B^

¶9

D.K.S. Bhawan, Raipur C.G.

¶10

?<'<>'a<i(i3 D.K.S. Bhawan, Raipur C.G.
2. Sanyukta Sanchalak,
S-tll^n<!> Kosh and Lekha, Raipur C.G.
%^v"
3. Pracharya,
,^ Govt. Higher Secondary. School,
^??0 Beloda, District Balod, C.G.
WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE
CONSTITUTION OF INDIA.

¶11

s°

¶12

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH : BILASPUR

¶13

Writ Petition (S) No.2920 of 2012

PETITIONER

Satyanarayan Mishra

Versus

RESPONDENTS

State Govt. of C.G. & Others

¶19

Single Bench : Hon'ble Shri Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra

¶20

Present:Shri Ajay Shrivastava, Advocate for the petitioner.

¶21

Ms. Raksha Awasthy, Panel Lawyer for the State.

¶22

ORAL ORDER

¶23

(Passed on this 17th day of October, 2013)

¶24

Heard learned counsel for the parties.

¶25

¶26

By this petition, the petitioner seeks quashing of the crders dated 29-2-2012 (Annexure^- P/1) & 25-1-2012 (Annexure^- P/2) in respect of recovery of Rs.35,842/& Rs.462/-, rcspectively, made by the respondent authorities.

¶27

Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that on account of fear of withholding of his retrial dues, the petitioner deposited the amount, as aforestated, in the Bank vide challans Annexures - P/3 & P/4.

¶28

ys.

¶29

¶30

Relying on the judgment of Supreme Court in Sahib Ram vs. State of Haryana andothers , which has been followed by this court in the matter of Vidyadhar Tiwari vs. The State of Chhattisgarh and others , and Ramchandra Kurup Vs. StateofC.G. & others3, learned counsel forthe "\petitioner would submit that recovery of excess payment cannot be made without giving any opportunity of hearing to the petitioner when

¶31

.1 1995Supp(1)SCC18 22006 (4)MPMT105 32010(3)CGLJ400

¶32

"mr ilE^I N»l: i!,i.-^^4.-,-i,,-,.-.^;._

¶33

¶34

payment has not been obtained by him by committing fraud or misrepresentation.

¶35

¶36

On the other hand, learned State Counsel has relied on judgment of Supreme Courtin the matter of Chandi Prasad Uniyal and Ors. Vs. State of Uttarakhand and Ors. to argue that recovery of excess payment of public money paid to an employee has to be made as the concept of fraud or misrepresentation is not applicable to such situation. According to the learned State Counsel, any amount paid/received without authority of law can always be recovered.

¶37

¶38

In the matter Col. B.J. Akkara (Retd.) V. Govemment of India and others , the Supreme Court has held that restraining recovery back of excess payment is granted by the courts not because of any right in the employees, but in equity, in exercise of judicial discretion, to relieve the employees from the hardship that will be caused if recovery is implemented with further observation that a Government servant, particularly one in the lower rungs of service would spend whatever emoluments he receives for the upkeep of his family. If he receives an excess payment for a long period, he would spend it genuinely believing that he is entitled to it. As any subsequent action to recover the excess paymentwill cause undue hardship to him, and reliefwas granted in that behalf.

¶39

¶40

In Syecf Abdul Qadir and others vs. State of Bihar and others6, the Supreme Court restrained the department from recovery of excess \amount paid by holding thus :

¶41

4 2012 AIRSCW 4742 5 [(2006) 11 SCC 709]: (2006AIR SCW 5252) 6 [(2009) 3 SCC 475] : (2009 AIR SCW 1871)

¶42

"Undoubtedly, the excess amount that has been paid to the appellants - teachers was not because of any misrepresentation or fraud on their part and the appellants also had no knowledge that the amount that was being paid to them was more than what they were entitled tb. It would not be out of place to mentioh here that the Finance Department had, in its counteraffidavit, admitted that it was a bonafide mistake on their part. The excess payment made was the result of wrong interpretation of the rule that was applicable to them, for which the appellants cannot be held responsible. Rather, the whole confusion was because of inaction, negligence and carelessness of the officials concerned of the Government of Bihar. Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants-teachers submitted that majority of the beneficiaries have either retired or are on the verge of it. Keepjng in view the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case at hand and to avoid any hardship to the appellants-teachers, we are of the view that no recoveryof the amountthat has been paid in excess to the appellants-teachers should be made."

¶43

While holding in Chandi Prasad t/n/ya/(supra) that any amount paid/ received without authority of law can always be recovered and the concept of fraud or misrepresentation is not applicable in such situation, theSupreme Court has clearly laid down the exceptions to the rule and the exceptions mentioned in the Judgment of Col. B.J. Akkara (Retd.) (supra) and SyedAbdul Quad/r (supra) has been referred with approval. One of the exceptions carved out by the Supreme Court in the matter of Syed Abdul Qadir (supra) is that where the beneficiary of excess payment has either retired or is on the verge of it, to avoid any hardship to.such employees/teachers, the recoverywas quashed.

¶44

¶45

In the present case also petitioner retired from service and the steps for recovery of excess payment were made after his retirement.

¶46

Since the petitioner was not working on any gazetted post and was not a ,> highly paid employee, the present casesquarely fall within the exception

¶47

¶48

^S^S.
-*^
^.J/ i
•""i'tes^'

¶49

carved out by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matters of SyedAbdul Qacffr(Supra)and Chandi Prasad Uniyal (Supra).

¶50

¶51

¶52

For the aforesaid reasons, this Court has no hesitation in quashing the impugned recovery of Rs.35,842/- & Rs.462/- and accordingly the said recovery is quashed. Respondents are directed to finalize the pension case of the petitioner, if not finalized earlier, as early as possible, without insisting on payment ofthe amount mentioned inAnnexures P/1 & P/2. As a sequel, the writ petition is allowed in above terms. No order as to

costs.

—„

Sd//-

ilii.lllit—

Satyanarayan Mishra v. State Govt.of Chhattisgarh And Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Satyanarayan Mishra v. State Govt.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

Umesh Agrawal Vs State of Chhattisgarh and Ors.

Dorilal Sharma Vs State Of Chhattisgarh And Ors.

Sanjeev Kumar Tripathi Vs C.G.Infrastructure Dev.Corp.and Anr.

Smt.Seema Patel Vs State of Chhattisgarh and Ors.

Ku.Neelima Singh Chandel Vs State of Chhattisgarh and Ors.

Hidayat Ali Vs State of Chhattisgarh and Ors.