Allowed

Girja Shanker Mahalwar v. State Govt.of C.G. and Others

Chhattisgarh HC9 Jul 2014WPS/1607/2010

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Chhattisgarh, in a writ petition under Article 226, quashed an order directing recovery of excess pension amounts from a retired teacher. Citing Supreme Court precedents, the Court held that recovery is barred when the excess was due to administrative error, the employee is retired or nearing retirement, and there was no fraud, to avoid undue hardship.

What did the court decide?

The impugned order directing recovery of Rs. 40,915/- is quashed; respondents directed to refund recovered amount and cannot recover further without opportunity of hearing.

Girja Shanker Mahalwar Vs State Govt.of… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Chhattisgarh HC (2014)

^9'i^. }!-

0-- <br>

IN THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISHGARH AT BILASPUR (C.G.)

¶6

W.P.(S)NO. J^7?/2010

¶7

Petitioner

¶8

•/' Girja Shanker Mahalwar aged 63 year Son of late Shri Ravi Shanker Mahalwar, Retired Upper Division Teacher, Sheopuri Block Dongargarh Distt. Rajnandgaon. C.G.

¶9

Versus

¶10

State Govemment of Chhattishgarh, Through the Secretary, School Education Department, D.K.S. Bhavan, Raipur (C.G.)

¶11

Res^iondents

¶12

|0 .< ^^{'.•<^^"tp} ,2, •cyy' ..••''.^t'^-'" ^y... 3.

¶13

Divisional Joint Director,

¶14

Kosh, Lekha and Pension,Raipur CG

¶15

District Treasury Officer,

¶16

Rajnandgaon.^c.<;.)

¶17

Writ Petition under Article²²⁶ of the Constitution of^India for issuance of writ of Mandamus/direction or anv other

-,/^" ^.M/ff:~-:.

appropriate writ.

^f<br>

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR

¶22

SLNGLE_BENCH_ : HON'BLE SHRI PRASHANT KUMAR MISHRA, J.

¶23

W.P. (S) No. 1607 of 2010

¶24

PETITIONER Girja Shanker Mahalwar

¶25

Versus

¶26

RESPONDENTS State of Chhattisgarh and others.

¶27

Shri Ajay Shrivastava, counsel for petitioner.

¶28

Shri Ajit Singh, Panel Lawyer for the State.

¶29

ORAL ORDER (09.07.2014)

¶30

Heard finally with the consent of the learned counsel for the parties.

¶31

Petitioner has preferred this writ petition seeking quashment of the order 28/02/2009 (Annexure P-1), whereby the Divisional Joint Director, Treasury, Account & Pension, Raipur Division, Raipur has directed for recovery of Rs.40,915/- from the retiral dues/gratuity payable to the petitioner. 3. Petitioner was working as Upper Division Teacher. He retired on 30/11/2008. By order dated 28/02/2009 the Divisional Joint Director, Treasury, Account & Pension, Raipur Division, Raipur has directed to make recovery of Rs. 40.915/- from the retiral dues/gratuity payable to the petitioner.

¶32

Relying on the judgment of Supreme Court in the matter of Sahib Ram Vs. S(a(e of Haryana and others, 1995 Supp (1) SCC 18 which has been followed by this court in the matter of Vidyadhar Tiwari Vs. The State of Chhattisgarh and others, 2006 (1) MPHT 105 and Ramchandra Kurup Vs. State of C.G. & others, 2010 (3) CGLJ 400 learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that recovery of excess payment cannot be made without giving any opportunity of hearing to _the petitioner when payment has not been obtained by him by committing fraud or mis-representation.

¶33

On the other hand, learned State Counsel has relied on judgment of Supreme Court in the matter of Chandi Prasad Uniyal and Ors. Vs. State of

¶34

Uttarakhand and Ors. 2012 AIR SCW 4742 to argue that recovery of excess

¶35

¶36

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

In the matter Col. B.J. Akkara (Retd.) V. Government of India and others, [(2006) 11 SCC 709] : (2006 AIR SCW 5252), the Supreme Court has held that restraining recovery back ofexcess 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 payment will cause undue hardship to him, and reliefwas granted in that behalf.

¶38

I n Syed Abdul Qadir and others vs. State of Bihar and others [(2009) 3

¶39

SCC 475; ; (2009 AIR SCW 1871), the Supreme Court restrained the department

¶40

from recovery of excess amount paid by holding thus :

¶41

"Undoubtedly, the excess amount that has been paid to the

¶42

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 to. It would not be out of place to mention here that the Finance Department had, in its counter-affidavit, 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, forwhich 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

¶43

- submitted that majority of the beneficiaries have either retired or are ori~ the verge of it. Keeping 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 recovery of the amount that has been paid in excess to the appellants-teachers should be made."

¶44

¶45

¶46

While holding in Chandi Prasad Uniyal (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, the Supreme 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 Syed Abdul Quadir (supra) has been referred with approval. One of the exceptions carved out by the 'is that where the Supreme Court in the matter of Syecf Abdul Qadir (supra) beneficiary of excess payment has either retired or is on the verge of it, to avoid any hardship to such employees/teachers, the recovery was quashed.

¶47

In the present case also the petitioner has retired in 30/11/2008. Steps for recovery of excess payment made to the petitioner on account of retiral dues/gratuity were initiated in the year 2009. Therefore, the case clearly falls within the exception carved out by the Supreme Court in the matter of Syed Abdul Qadir's case (supra) and approved in Chandi Prasad Uniyal (supra). 10. For the foregoing reasons, this Court has no hesitation in quashing the impugned order Annexure P-1 whereby recovery of amount of Rs.40,915/- has been directed on account of excess payment made to him without giving opportunity of hearing. The respondents are directed to refund the amount already recovered from the petitioner and they shall not recover any further amount. However, they would be at liberty to recover the amount in accordance with law applicable to a retired employee after giving due opportunity of hearing. 11. In the result, the writ petition is allowed with the liberty aforesaid.

¶48

Sd//Prashant Kumar Mishra Judge

¶49

•i s>Wrf

Girja Shanker Mahalwar v. State Govt.of C.G. and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Girja Shanker Mahalwar v. State Govt.of C.G. and Others

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

Naveen U. Shah Vs State of Chhattisgarh and Ors.

Rupesh Kumar Kashyap Vs State of Chhattisgarh and Ors.

Sunil Kumar Ekka Vs State Of Chhattisgarh And Ors.

Narantak Ram Sahu and Ors. Vs State Of Chhattisgarh and Ors.

Dr. Arunima Dubey Vs State of Chhattisgarh and Anr.

Surendra Kumar Soni and Others Vs State of Chhattisgarh and Others