c.^=, (^ <ra / INTHE HIGH COURTOF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR W. P. (S) No. 3 1 r?-T OF 2011. PETITIONER .ff^S^ • ^y ^* r^ ^?'".'*" ....••"' Mani Rana Sahu, S/o. late Shri R. P. Sahu, aged about 66 years, Retired Assistant Teacher, R/o. Village Golkunmrha, Post Khartha, Tahsil Charama, District Kanker (C.G.). VERSUS RESPONDENTS 1. State of Chhattisgarh, Through : The Secretary, Tribal Welfare Department, D.K.S. Bhawan, Raipur (C. G.) /' 2. Divisional, Joint Director, Treasury, Accounts and Pension, Division Jagdalpur, District Bastar (C. G.) 3. Block Education Officer, Charama, Block Charama, District Kanker (C.G.) s.^^ WRIT PBTITION UNDER_ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTIONOF INDIA ^•.SKSis,^ HIGH COURT OF CHHATT1SGARH AT BILASPU^ WRIT PET1TION (S) No. 1175 of2011 PETrTIONER : ManiRamSahu. VERSU8 RESPONDENTS : State ofChhattisgarh & Others. WRIT PE'HTION UNDER AIffICLE 226 OF THE CONSTn'UTION OF INDIA SBjLHon'Me Shri Satish K. Agmhotn,LJ. Present: Shri Somkant Verma, Advocate for the petitioner. Shri Y.S.Thakur, Deputy Advoeate General for the State/ respondents. ORDERfORAL) 2. (Passed on 03" day ofMarch, 2011) Challenge in this petition is to the order dated 23.10.2007 (Annexure P/l) whereby, a sum ofRs. 40,073/- has been directed to be recovered from the retrial dues ofthe petitioner, holding it to be excess payment made to the petitioner during the course ofhis semce. ,1: Shri Verma, leamed counsel appearing for the petitioner subnuts that the petitioner, while working as Assistant Teacher, retired from service 31.08.2007 on attaming the age of superannuation. According to Shri Verma, the impugned reeovery has been made without aflbrding an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, and furfher, the issue asto whether recovery of excess payment ean be made without following principles of natural justiee is no longer res mtegra, the same has been settled by the Supreme Court in the matter of Sahib P.am v. State ofHaryana and other^, and furfher followed by this Court in the matter of Vidyadhar Tiwari v. The State ofChhattisgarh & Others^ and Vidya Shankar Tiwari v. State of M.P. (Now State of Chhattisgarh) and others aad thereafter followed in several decisions. 5S St~*C 2 20&6 (1) I-/JPHT 105 (CG) 32006(2)MHrr31(CG) Amit 3. This Cowt m Ramchandra Kunip v. State ofC.G. & Others and other comiected matters, observed as under: "19. A common fhread running into the above decisions ofthe Supreme Court is that, for 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 ofmisrepresentation or fraud on the part of the employee, (ii) the employee had knowledge that the paymait received was in excess, and (iii) Ihe error was corrected within a short spaa oftime ofwrong paymeat......" 4. Leamed counsel appearing for the State/respondents does not controvert the submissions made by leamed counsel for the petitioner and submits that this matter may be disposed of in the same temis. 5. In view of the foregoing and as admitted by leamed counsel appearmg for the parties, fhis petition is disposed ofin the tenns of the order passed in the case of Rcimchandra Kurup . i.e. fhe impugned order dated 23.10.2007 (Armexure P/l) regarding recovery of amount of Rs. 40,073/- from the retrial dues of the petitioner on account of excess payment, is hereby quashed. The petitioner is entitled to fall pensionary benefits/gratuity amount wilhout any deduction. If the amount has been recovered, the petitioner is entitled to the said amount. 6. However, it is open to the respondents to take recourse to Rule 65 of the Cfahattisgarh Civi! Services (Pension) Rules, 1976, if so advised, in accordance with law, after following basic principles of naturaljustice. w- SatishK.Agi Judge 2010 (3) CGU 400