O R D E R

The writ petitioner was a Physical Education Teacher and he retired from service on 30.05.1995. The impugned order of recovery has been issued based on the audit objections stating that the fixation of pay effected to the writ petitioner was erroneous and not in accordance with the Government Orders in force. Thus, the excess payment made to the writ petitioner is sought to be recovered.

2. The learned counsel for the writ petitioner states that no notice or opportunity was given to the writ petitioner before issuing the impugned order of recovery. Thus, the impugned order is in violation of the principles of natural justice.

3. The learned counsel appearing for the first respondent brought to the notice of this Court that the Honourable Supreme Court of India has fixed the ratio in the case of Chandi Prasad Uniyal and others Vs. State of Uttarakhand and others, reported in (2012) 8 SCC 417, and the same is to be followed as precedent, wherein it has been held as follows:-

“14.We are concerned with the excess payment of public money which is often described as “taxpayers' money” which belongs neither to the officers who have effected overpayment nor to the recipients. We fail