sma‘e gene“ In the Hon’ble High Court of Chhattishgarh at Bilasgur 1C.G.1 Through the Secretary, Irrigation Department, D.K.S. Bhavan, Raipur (C.G.) /2 Executive Engineer, Writ tition under issuance 0f Mandam writ. W.P. (S) No. EEé/ / 2009 Petitionar g" Surajbhan Singh Thakur, aged 54 years Son of late Shri Kanwal Singh Thakur, Nalkup Fitter, Vidyut Yantriki Light Machinary, Nalkup and Gate Sambhag, Rajnandgaon (C.G.) Versus Respondents ../.,L’.»State Government of Chhattishgarh, Vidut/Yantriki Light Machinery, Naikup & Gate Durg (C.G.) .Sub Divisional Officer, Tube Well Construction, Sub Division No.26, Rajandgaon (C.G.) Article 226 0f the Constitution 0f India for us of writ, direction or any other appropriate e HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH : BILASPUR WRIT PETITION (S) NO. 5561 OF 2009 PETITIONER Surajbhan Singh Thakur Versus RESPONDENTS State Government of Chhattisgarh & Others (Writ Petition under Anicle 226 of the Constitution of India) Single Bench : Hon’ble Shri Satish K. Agnihotri, J. Present :— Shri Somkant Verma, Advocate for the petitioner. Shri N.N. Roy, Panel Lawyerfor the State. ’x ORDER ORAL (Passed on this 7" day of April, 2010) 1. Learned counsel appearing for‘the petitioner submits that the petitioner is not challenging the order to the effect discontinuing the grant of increments on account of family planning operation, however, the payment whatsoever has been made to the petitioner on account of increments granted to the petitioner by the respondent authorities the same may not be recovered. Learned counsel further submits that the petitioner was not granted the increments on account of misrepresentation or fraud committed by him. The increments were granted to the petitioner by the respondent authorities after having considered all the facts particularly the fact that the petitioner had undergone the family planning operation. r2. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the State submits that since the impugned order was passed on 22-8-1 995 whereas the petitioner challenged the same in the month of x / ,\‘ @ September, 2009. Thus, the petitioner is not entitled to any relief on the ground of delay and laches. l have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties, perused the pleadings and the documents appended thereto. The Supreme Court in the year 1995 itself in Sahib Ram v. State of Haryana and others‘ ‘has‘ settled that no recovery can, be made if it is not on account of any misrepresentation or fraud committed by the employee, but by wrong construction made by the authorities. In para 5 the Supreme Court observed as under : “5. However, it is not on account of any misrepresentation made by the appellant that the benefit of higher pay scale was given to him but by wrong construction made by the Principal for which the appellant cannot be held to be at fault. Under the circumstances the amount paid till date may not be recovered from the appellant. " In view of foregoing, the impugned order passed in respect of recovery part remained illegal order, as the same was passed contrary to well settled principles of law laid down by the Supreme Court in Sahib Ram (supra). Even otherwise, in the return the State has not averred that the increments were granted to the petitioner on account of his misrepresentation or fraud, or any prejudice has been caused to the respondents. Refusal to maintain a writ petition after a gap of inordinate delay depends on the facts and circumstances of each case. There is no absolute embargo on the writ jurisdiction on examining a case after a long delay. 1 1995 supp (1) scc 20 ‘ I 6. This Court, as well as the Supreme Court, in a catena of decisions, time and again reiterated that no recovery of excess payment for no fauit of the empioyee can be made without foliowing the principles of naturai 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 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 .......... ” 7. Applying the well settled principles of law to the faCts of the case and for the reasons mentioned hereinabove, the impugned order passed in respect of recovery of excess payment made to the I petitioner, is hereby quashed. lf the amount has already been recovered, the petitioner is entitled to the said amount, subject to verification of facts. The petitioner is not entitled to any interest, as the petitioner's claim is belated i.e. after a period of about 14 years. 8. i The writ petition is acCordingly disposed of. No order asto costs. Sd/— _ it: Satlsh K. Agnihotri s Judge Gowri 2 W:P.(S) No. 3663 of 2009 I . . ‘