IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WRIT PETITION (S)/NO.Z...2%1 ........OF 2008 PETITIONERS 1 ’ Avinash Anand Walter S/o Shri S.H.Wa1ter aged about 33 years working as Multipurpous Health Worker (Male) Communiti Health Center Sarangarh Dist. /’ Raigarh (C.G.) 2. Sanjeev Kumar Yadav S/o Late Ganesh Ram Yadav, aged about 37 years Working as Multipurpous Health Worker '(Male) Communiti Health Center Pussore Dist. Raigarh (C.G.) Om Prakash Patel S/o Shri Chandi Prasad Patel aged about 39 years, working as Multipurpous Health Worker (Male) Communiti Health Center Pussore Dist. Raigarh (C.G.) Bhavesh Kumar Pandey S/o Late HarPrasad Pandey, aged about 34 years, Working as Multipurpous Health Worker (Male) Communiti Health Center Pussore Dist. Raigarh (C.G.) VERSUS RESPONDENTS 1 . WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF COUNSTITUTION OF INDIA. State of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary Health Department D.K.S. Bhawan Mantralaya, Raipur (C.G.) The Director, Health Services Raipur Dist. Raipur (C.G.) Chief Medical Officer District Hospital Rajgarh Dist. Raigarh (C.G.) THE “um wi- Mw...m L L: / "x, " a” “ ’ / HIGH CGURT (3F CHHA?THSG§RH AT aiLAS?UFQ WRh‘T PETQTWN l5} N0. 22?? 0f 2903 ?etitioneg§ Avinash Anam‘ Walter & others Versus Respondent State of Chhattisaam & others. WRIT PETiTiON UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CGNSTiTUTiON GF iNDiA ($3 : HGn’Me Mr. Saiish K. Agnihotri, J.) Present :- Shri RS. Patei, Advocate for the peimoners. Shri VV. S. Moor‘thy, Deputy Advocate Genera? with Shri NN. Ray, Panel Lawye! fer the State/respondents. aRDER 10mm {Passed on 5‘“ gay of May, 2mg) Chauenge in this petition is to ihe order dated 14.11.2007 (Annexure W1) wherebv it has been directed to reccver the excess paymeni made t9 the peiiiioners. on accouni Gf wrong fixaiion of iheir saiary. 2. Leamed cauiasei appearing for the petiiianers submité that the peiitioners are working on the p031 of i‘viuitipurpose Heaiih Worker (Maie) District- Raigarh. The petitioners received a communication daieoi 14.11.2067 (Annexure P11) issued by the respondent authoritiee whereby it has been directeri to recover 1he excess payment made to the petitioraers. on ac'count of wrong fixation of saiary. 3hri Patet submits that the punitive oroer of recovery has been passed without affording an opportunity of hearing io ihe peiitionere. He further ooniends that the issue asto whether recovery of exoess payment for no fauit of the empioyee can be made without foiiowing ihe principies oi naturai justice is no ionger res integra. The same has been sehied by Hon’bie Supreme Court in various” decisions (See Syed Abdul Qadir and others vs. Siaie of Bihar and atheis‘). This Couri. relying on the above decisions has passed severai orders, directing refund of the amount. if any. recovered from the empioyees, where the employees were not given any opportunity to expiain about the excess payment. if any, made to them. 4. Shri Patei. on instructions, further submits that the petitioners do not want to press other grounds i.e. withdrawal of increment or further action on the basis of impugned order dated 14.11.2007 {hnnexure PM). The petitioners \\\i\goooi 3 soc 475 \s .\.\\\ %% confine §hei§ grayer to the extent mat recovery of excess paymeni mat§e 10 the petiiioners an accwm cf wrorzg fixaiiem m“ saiary, may n0? be made. Learned ccunsei aypearing for me Staiefmspnndems dees not dispme the above submission made by ieamecl mange? apyean‘ng fer the peiéiioners. Leame6 counsel furtiier su§3mits {hat since no opportunity of hearing was afforded before passing me imgaugned order, iiberiy may be granred to i'he respondenifSiaie to take steps for reccvery of any excess amount after foHowmg fhe ciue pracees of iaw and aiier affarding an opportuniiy of hearing to the ye‘ritioners. it is a trite iaw 'EhaE no order prejudicing the interest of an employee can be passed without affording an cpporiunity of hearing. ii is not the case of respondenis that opporizmity of hearing was anorded io the peiiiionere. and ihe preseni case is euch wherein notice of hearing is io be dispensed wiih. This Court as weii as Hon’hie Supreme Count in a caiena of decisions, time end again reiiereies that no recovery of excess eaymeni for no ieuii of the emoiovee can be made without ioiiowing ihe principles of naiurai iusiice. This Coui’i in Ramchendra Kurup Vs. Siaie of C.G. & othersz and oiher connected matiersi Ciecideci on 23’“ November, 2009, obsewed as under: “1g. A common thread running into the above decisions of the Supreme Court is ihai, for recovery of excess paymeni oi emoiumenisiaiiowances, inere are three conziiiions wherein ihe excess payment may be recovered, nameiy {i} excess payment was made en aooourii of misreoreseniaiion or fraud on ihe part of ihe employee, (ii) the empioyee had knowiedge ihet the payment received was in excess, and (iii) ihe error was correcied within a siiori span of iime of wrong payment ’a Accordingiy, the impugned order dated 14.?12087‘ directing recovery of excess payment made {o the peiiiioners. is hereby quashed. if the amouiit has aiready been recovered. ihe petitioners are eniitied to refund of ihe said amount subject io verificaiion of facts. However, liberty is reserved to the 8iaie/respondents ic iake any steps, if so advised, in accordance wiih iaw for recovery oi excess payment if any. The peiiiion is ailowed to the exieni indicaiecl above. n/ There shall be no order asio costs. /'”" ‘ ” ’/'/ Sdl - K. Agniho"‘ Satish Judge .P.(S) No. 3663 of 2009