wl%Z‘ BEFORE HON’BLE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR w.P.(S)No. 499) /2009 9 WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION / OF INDIA. / PETITIONER ‘ Maya Devi Rangari W/o- Shri‘Yadav Ram Rangari, Aged about 63 years, R/o.- Mamta Nagar, District- Rajnandgaon (C.G.) RESPONDENTS / 1) State of Chhattisgarh, Thrpugh Secretary, school Education Department, D.K.S. Bhéwan, Raipur (C.G.) / 2) District Education Officer, Rajnandgaon, Collectorate. District— Rajnandgaon (C.G.) Divisionai Joint Director, Directorate of Treasury,. Accounts and Pension Department, Raipur (C.G.) % ,> HIGH COURT OF'CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPI IR WRIT PETITION (S) No. 4956 of 2009 Maya Devi Rangari. VERSUS RESPONDENTS : State of Chhattisgarh & Others. WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA SB: Hon’ble Shri Satish K. Agnihotri, J. Present: PETITIONER Shri Anup Majumdar, Advocate for the petitioner. Shri A.V.Shridhar, Panel Lawyer for the State/respondents. ORDER g ORAL 1 (Passed on 14“ day of March, 201 1) 1. Challenge in this petition is to the order dated 22.03.2007 (Annexure P/4) whereby, a sum of Rs. 28,959/— has been directed to be recovered from the retrial dues of the petitioner, holding it to be excess payment made to the petitioner during the course of his service. 2. Shri Majumdar, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner, while working as Assistant Teacher, retired from service, 0n 28.022007, on attaining the age of superannuation. According to Shri Majumdar, the impugned recovery has been made without affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, and further, the issue asto whether recovery of excess payment can be made without following principles of natural justice is no longer res inlegra, the same has been settled by the Supreme Court in the matter of Sahib Ram v. State ofHaryana and otherSI, and further followed by this Court in the matter of Vidyadhar Tiwarz‘ v. The State of Chhattisgarh & Othersz and Vidya Shankar Tiwarz' v. State ofMP. (Now State of Chhatrisgarh) arid others3 and thereafter followed in several decisions. 3. The State/respondent, in its return, has neither pleaded nor established that a show-cause—riotice or any opportunity of hearing ‘ 1995 Supp (1) scc 18 2 2006 (1) MPHT 105 (CG) \\\r 3 2006 (2) MPHT 31 (CG) gfz ; was afforded to the petitioner, before passing the impugned recovery order. This Court in Ramchandra Kurup v. State of C.G. & 0thers4 and other connected matters, observed as under: “19. A common thread 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 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 ...... ” Leamed counsel appearing for the State/respondents does not controvert the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioner and submits that this matter may be disposed of in the san’le terms. In‘view of the foregoing and as admitted by learned counsel appearing for the parties, this petition is disposed of in the terms of the order passed in the case of Ramchandra Kurup4. lie. the impugned order 'dated 22.03.2007 (Annexure P/4) regarding recovery of amount of Rs. 28,959/- from the retrial dues of the petitioner on account of excess payment, is hereby quashed. The petitioner is entitled to full pensionary benefits/gratuity amount without any deduction. If the amount has been recovered, the. petitioner is entitled to the said amount. However, it is open to the respondents to take recourse to Rule 65 of the Chhatt’isgarh Civil Services (Pension). Rules, 1976, if so advised, in accordance with law, after following basic principlespf natural justice. Satish K. Agnihotri Judge l Amit 4 2010 (3) CGLJ 400