IN THE HON’BLE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR W.P.(S)No. 5w /2009 Dinesh Rai, S/o. Achutanand Rai, aged about 62 years, R/o. HIG—66, M.P. Nagar, Korba, District Korba (C.G.) PETITIONER VERSUS RESPONDENTS 1] State of Chhattisgarh, through: Secretary, Veterinary Department (Dairy Department), D.K.S. Bhawan, Raipur District Raipur (C.G.) / 2], Milk Commissioner—cum-Director, Dairy & Veterinary Services, Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.) 3] Assistant Director, Kosh Lekha, & Pension, Bilaspur Division, Bilaspur (C.G.) K 4] Joint Director, Kosh Lekha & Pension Bilaspur, District Bilaspur (C.G.) / 5] Accountant General, Chhattisgarh, (W W W 17W 12/93 Raipur, Raman Mandir: Ice Factory Building, Fafadih Chowk, Raipur, District Raipur (CG) / r 6] Deputy Milk Commissioner, Integrated Dairy Development Project, Ambikapur, Surguja, District Surguja (C.G.) WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA 1] PARTICULARS OF THE PETITIONER (S): As stated above in the cause title. 2] PARTICULARS OF THE RESPONDENT (S): As stated above in the cause title. : W} HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH : BILASPUR WritPetition (S) No. 6799 of2009 Petitioner Dinesh Rai Versus Respondsnts Stat€ of Chhattisgarh 85 others . WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA (SB: Hon’ble Shri Satish K. Agnihotn' J.) Shri Manoj Paranjpe, Advocate for the petitioner. Shri P. K. Bhaduri, Panel Lawyer for the respondents No. 1 to 4. Shri Raghvendra Pradhan, Advocate for the respondent No.5. 0 R D E R (Oral) Heard. (Passed on this 20th day of November, 2009) 1. Challenge in this petition is to the order dated 26.3.2008 (Annexure P/ 1), whereby a sum of Rs. 34,750/« (Rupees Thirty Four Thousand, Seven Hundred and Fifty) towanis excess payment made to the petitioner has been directed to be recovered from the petitioner. Further, the amount of medical reimbursement to the tune of Rs. 42,000] — has been withheld and the same has not been released. Learned counsel appearing for 'the petitioner submits that the petitioner was not given any opportunity to explain about the payment made to the petitioner. Thus, this order is vitiated for want of compliance of the principles of natural justice and fair play in action. Learned counsel further submits that there is no fault on the part of the petitioner and the amount is paid to him in accordance With the pay scales, revised and nxed by the respondents horn time to time. The reason assigned for recovery is not sustainable, as there was ’no fault on the part of the petitioner. (17% The respondents cannot recover ti1e unt, already paid to the petitioner whout following the rinciples o atuml justice. it p f n Learned counsel appe for the respondents submits that f the aring i excess payment was made to the petitioner, e s can be th ame recovered at the time of settlement of retiral dues. The respondent—authorities have not followed the principles of natural justice and the impugned action has been taken witht ou aifding an opporty of hear to the petitioner. The practice or unit ing of passing order involving civl consences, without show cause i que notice or without adording an opporty, is condemned. unit The issue asto whether recovery of excess payent for no fault of m the employee can be made without following the principles of natural justice is no longer res integra. The s has been settled ame by Hon’ble Supreme Court in various decisions. In Syed Abdul Qadir and others vs. state of Bihar and othersl, Hon’bl Thre e e Judges of the Supreme Court, having considered all the aspects of te matter and the decisions rendered by the Supreme Court in the past, observed as under: “57. This Couit, in a catena of decisions, has granted relief against recovery of excess payment of emoluments/allowances if (a) the eess unt was not paid on account of any misrepresenttion or fraud on the part of the employee, and (b) if such excess payment was made by the employer by aplying a wrong principle for calculating the pay/allowance or on the basis of a particular interpretation of rule/ order, which is subsequently found to be erroneous. 58. The relief against recovery is granted by courts not because of any right in the employees, but in equity, exercising judicial discretion to relieve the employees from the hardship that will be caused if recovery is ordered. But, if in a given case, it is proved that the employee had knowledge that the payment received was in excess of What was due or wrongly paid, or in cases where the error is detected or corrected within 1 (2009) 3 SCC 475 amo \ h xc amo a p «y? a short time ofwrong payment, the matter being in the realm of judicial discretion, couxts may, on the facts and circumstances of any palticular case, order for recovexy of the amount paid in excess. See Sahib Ram v. State of Haryana, Shyam Babu Verma v. Union of India, Union of India v. M. Bhaskar, V. Gangamm v. Director, Col. B.J.Akka1a (Retd.) v. Govt. of India, Purshottam Lal Das v. State of Bihar, Punjab National Bank v. Manjeet Singh and Bihar SEB v. Bijay Bhadur.” 6. In View of the forgoing, the petition is allowed. The impugned order dated 26.3.2008 (Annexure P/ 1), directing recovery of Rs. 34,750/-, 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. No order asto costs. 7. With regard to the amount of medical reimbursement, as prayed, the petitioner is permitted to make a representation before the concerned authority to consider his case for grant of medical . V reimbursement, if so advised. Sd/- Satish K. Agnihotri / Judge 7.