HJGHCOURTQFCHHATTISGHATLBILASPUR vs S.K. Chakarabarty and others.

2. H.K. Prakash S/o ShriM.B.^ Prakash Aged About46 Years, Occupation Subedar (M)

3. J.N. Kashyap S/o Late Shri/" Diwan Kashyap , Aged About 50 Years Occupation Subedar (M) <f ^

4. Smt. Balmuni Bai W/o Shri/ Keshwar Prajapati , Aged About 48 Years, Occupation

8.1. (M)

5. Smt. Prabhawati W/o Shri/ P.D. Choudhary Aged About 47 Years, Occupation S.I. (M)

6. Smt. Asha Tirky W/o Late / Shri K.R. Tirky Aged About 39 Years, Occupation S.I.(M) t CT

7. Smt. Sadhna W/o Shri A.K.^ Shriwastav Aged About 46 Years, Occupation A.S.I.(M)

8. S.K. Gupta S/o Late Shri^ Chandra Bhan Aged About 44 Years, Occupation A.S.I.(M)

9. Anand Ram S/o Shri / Raghunath Ram Aged About 38 Years, Occupation A.S.I.(M)

10. Fransis S/o Shri HabU Beg, Aged About 37 Years, Occupation A. S.I.

11. Pravin S/o Late Shri J.P. Jaswal, Aged About 34 Years, Occupation A.S.I.(M)

12. Kishor S/o Late Shri V.B.. Mahtha Aged About 33 Years, Occupation A.S.I.(M)

13. Sanjay Kumar S/o Shri N., Maadal Aged About 38 Years, -sy V^fi'Ti^^' A^i' Occupation A.S.I.(M) .iSZf •/ The petitioners No. 1 to 13 are workuie under the S.P. OfSce Surguia C.G.

14. S.K. Verma S/o Late Shri V.N./ Verma Aged About 45 Years, Occupation Subedar (M)

15. V.K. Sinha S/o Late Shri / Jamuna Shinha Aged About 45 Years, Occupation S.I. (M)

16. Kolha Ram S/o Haya Ram Aged /^ About 40 Years , Occupation S.I. (M)

17. A.K. Guha S/o Late Shri M.N./ Guha Aged About 37 Years, Occupation A.S.I.(M) The petitioners No. 14 to 17 are ^ working under the S.P. Office Suraipur C.G,

18. Ashwani S/o Rajendra Prasad /' AgedAbout 45Yeaps, Occupation S.I.(M), Posted at 10th B.N. Surguja

19. Pradeep Shukla S/o Late Shri / ^- ?s C.P. Shukla Aged About 49 Years, Occupation A.S.I.(M) Posted at S.P. Office (Radio) Bflaspur C.G. -: VERS US :- RESPONDENTS:

1. The State of Chhattisgarh/ Through The Secretary, Home Affairs, Police Dept. D.K.S.Bhawan Mantralaya Raipur {C.G.}

2. The Secretary, Finance^ D.K.S.Bhawan Maatralaya Raipur {C.G.}

3. The Director General OfPoUce,, Police Head Quarters Raipur {C.G.}

4. D.I.G. (Administration) .' PoUce Head Quarters, Raipur {C.G.}

5. The Director, ^ Treasury, Audit and Accounts, Chhattisgarh Raipur. (C.G.) WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 /227 OF THE CONSTrTUTION OF DIDIA FOR THE ISSU^UICE OF THE DIRECTION (Sl. OR ORDER (S). ^f HJGHCOURTQFCHHATTISGHATLBILASPUR a s^aa » t feti VERSUS S.K. Chakarabarty and others. State of Chhattisgarh & others. Shri Sandeep Dubey counsel for the petitioners. Shn Y.S. Thakur Dy. AG for the respondents /State. ICLE_226/227_OF Chalienge in this petition is to the order dated 29.7.2006 (Annexure P-1) passed by respondent No.4 instructing ali the police units of the State of Chhattisgarh to proceed with fixation of salar/ of the ministerial staff of the Police Department in accordance with the Choudhary Pay Commission. The said order also contains the instruction regarding the said benefit employees who have been appointed after 1.4.1981 and also for recovery of excess payment from the empioyees who haveavaiied the same. to be extended to the The facts of the case in brief are that fhe petitioRers are 2. ministeriat employees of Pofice Department and were granted the Chaudhary Pay Commsssion by order dated 28.8.2000. As the recommendations of ad hoc increase of salary were not granted to they approached the State Administrativs Tribunal the petitioners, raising their grievances. As per the order passed by the State Administrative Tribunal the pay of the ministeria! staff came to be reyised. Not only this, such order also came to be passed by the High Court of Madhya Pradesh and this Court as wel!, However, by order dated 29.7.2006 (Annexure P-1) the said benefit stood -z- withdrawn by the respondents and recovery proceedlngs were also directed to be initiated.

3. Counsel for the petitioners submits that the order impugned being passed retrospectively and without giving any opportunity of hearing to the petitioners sutfers from illegaiity and arbitrariness. He submits that this matter is squarely covered by the decision of this Court in the matter of Vidvadhar Tiwari v. State of Chhattisaarh and others reported in 2006 (1) MPHT 105 (CG) and therefore its disposal on the same terms v/ould serve the purpose.

4. Countering the submission of the counsel for the petitioners, State counse! submits that the petitioners are not entitied for retention of excess amount paid to them and therefore the order impugned asking for recovery of the same is just and proper and requires no interference. It

5. is not in dispute that the said benefit was granted to the petitioners without there being any misrepresentation on their part. In the matter of Sahib Ram v. State of Harvana and others reported in 19S5 Supp (15 SCC 20 it has been held by the Supreme Court as under: 'However, it is not on account of any misrepresentation made by the appellant that the benent of higher pay scale was given to him but by wrong construcSon made Ay the Pnndpa! for which the appellant cannot be held to be at fault. Under the circumstances, the amomt paid till date may not be recovered from fhe appellant." Similarty in the matter of P. Tulsidas and others v..Government of A.P. and others reported in AIR 2003 SC 43 it has been held by the Supreme Court that benefit accrued earlier by way of grant ofi' higher pay scale or revised pay, cannot be taken aviray as the same/ is violatsve of Artteles 1 4 and 16 of the ConstituSion of india.

6. Thus appiying the aforesaid fegai position in the case in hand, this Court is of the view that the petition deserves to be altovved. Accordingly, the petition is allowed and the order impugned is set -3 aside. If any recovery has been made, the same be refunded to the petitioners with simple interest. However, liberty is reserved to the respondents to take appropriate steps after complying with the principles of natural justice in accordance with law. Sd/- : Pritinker Diwaker Judse