IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATFISGARH AT BILASPUR wR/I/T PETITION ( s ) No. % 21 0f 2011 / Mani Ram ‘ladav, aged about 60 year-s S/o Shri Jhumuk La! Vadav, Retired Head Clerk (Aé' I) R/o Vitlage Hanfa, P.O. Sakari, {my}; Tahsil Takhafpur, District rszww M. Bilaspur (CG). through the Secretary, Education Department, Secretariat, D.K.S. Bhawan, Raipur (CG). /2. The Additional Director, Regional Office, Higher Education Bilaspur (C6). / '3. The District Treasury Officer, District Treasury, Bilaspur (CG). .4. The Joint Director, (Treasuries) Account and Pension, Biolspur Division, District Bilaspur (CG). 5. The Principal, Government Agrasen College, Bilho, District Bilaspur (CG). WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA V$t¥° f‘kewi’t‘ ’ e , Versus RESPONDENTS: /'1. The State of Chhattisgarhl ‘2‘} HIGH COURT OF CHHATI'ISGARH : BILASPUR WRIT PETITION (S) NO.822 OF 2011 PETITIONER Mani Ram Yadav Versus The State of Chhattisgarh & Others (Writ Petition under Anicie 226 of the Constitution of india) Single Bench : Hon’ble Shri Satish K. Agnihotri, J. _ Present :— Shri Sameer Behar, Advocate for the petitioner. ‘ Shri N.N. Roy, Panel Lawyerfor the State. ORDER {ORAL} (Passed on this 10‘ day of February, 2011) Heard Iearned counsei for the parties. By the present petition, the petitioner chailenges the order dated 24.12.2010 (Annexure P/1) whereby the petitioner was directed to deposit a sum of ? 58,1 17/-, holding'it to be excess payment made to the petitioner, during the course of his service. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner, working as Head Clerk, retired from service on attaining the age of superannuation on 31.12.2010. During the course of settlement of retiral dues, the petitioner was directed to deposit a sum of ? 58,117l- holding it to be excess payment made to the petitioner during the course of his service. Thereafter, the amount of ? 58,1 17/- has been deposited by the petitioner vide receipt Annexure — P/9. Learned counsel further submits that the issue asto whether recovery of excess payment for no fault of the employee can be made without followrng the prrncrples of natural Justrce rs no longer res Integra The same has been settled by Hon ble Supreme Court In varrous decrsrons (See Syed Abdul Qadrr and others v. State of Brhar and others’). This Court, relying on the above decisions has passed several orders, directing refund of the amount, if any, recovered from the employees, where the employees were not given any opportunity to explain about the excess payment, if any, made to them. Shri Verma further contends that any recovery from retiral dues can be made only in case if there was any misrepresentation or fraud on the part of the employee and the employee had knowledge that the RESPONDENTS 1 (2009) 3 SCC 475 Gowri 48 payment was received in excess. The error, if any, could have been corrected within a short span of time from wrong payment. Learned counsel appearing for the respondents does not dispute the above submission made by learned counsei appearing for the petitioner. However, he submits that the similar order mayr' be passed, subject to verification of facts. This Court, as weli as the Supreme Court, in a catena of decisions, time and again reiterated that no recovery of excess payment for no fault of the empioyee can be made without following the principles of natural justice. This Court in Ramchandra Kurup V. State of C.G. & othersz and other connected matters, decided on 23rd November, 2009, observed as under: “19. A common thread running into the above decisions of the Supreme Court is that for t. recovery of excess payment of emoluments/ allowances, there are three conditions wherein ' the excess payment may be recovered namely (i) excess payment Was made on account of _ misrepresentation or fraud on the part of the employee, (ii) the employee had knowledge that ' the payment received was in excess, and (iii) the error was corrected within a short span of time of wrong payment .......... " ln view of the fOrgoing, the impugned order dated 24-12-2010 (Annexure P/1) directing deposit of ? 58,1 17/— on account of excess payment made to the petitioner, is hereby quashed. If the amount has already been recovered, the petitioner is entitled to the said amount with interest at the rate of 6% per annum, subject to verification of facts. However, liberty is reserved to the State/respondents that if the excess payment has been made on account of misrepresentation or fraud on the part of the employee, or the employee had the knowledge that the payment received by him was in excess, fresh orders may be issued on verification of the facts, after affording opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. The writ petition is accordingly disposed of. 10. w.,.,.. No order asto costs. Sd/—' Satish K. Agnihotri I Judge 2 W.P.(S) No. 3663 of 2009