rNT-HEHON^BLKHIQhieoOFCT^RiCSHl^iiCTf :BIU^,laOR^C.^.y;'::'/';::;t::'':::'.''^ WRlTPETlTIONfSyN6.2SO^OF 2010 PETITiONER MfiiM @iil^ ^iS^^' ^;":/A.: y^ i.f: RESPONDENTS /<":: .;' ^•'-;;' :-'.:, :\';' .' ^:: .!' ' ; S. 3. Singh Spn pfLate"Shri ^, ; Kushal Pras9d;;Siric(h, aged^about 63 years,^ Resid&nt of 4/84 A, Kala Niwas, Near Water 'Tank, B^tiaFffbysi R6ad, Mohele Nagar, :Allahpur,Allahabad CU.F'.). •'A'^yEgsys..'::;;^^:;^f':':.-.^ 1. v State QfChhattisgarh, through: The^ . .Secretary, . Fore^ ;;:i:l^:par(;ment,,'^:®K.Sv:l:^^^Bhavvan, •A^®|%^R|@.l(jQ..^;'::;.,::-,-::"^ 2. ^tre Divisibnal l=c>i%st O Soufh;^urgujaForest^D Ambika|3ur; ; Distnct: Syrg uja ^:G.a;)-;-:-.,!f:.^ 3. The Joint Director, Treasury, Accbljrits; and Pensiori Bilaspur '';^;'.i. :.;::'::'.''';;^':^':l/Bivi:SJon,':,Bil;aspuF^ ;.::-1-^^.::.':;.^::^''^':^:':^^ :^'4.:':; :,^he^'.':t3j^ri:Gl;::^'T^asutyl:/'^^ Arribikapui^ ^ Disfri^' i.^Syrguja ,(&G,).,y^,',;'-.:',,.,^ WRITPEtmQN UN©ER:»KTI@E@2^^R:T7laE^e^^ ^0F';IIISl;Gffi^i::^';:^-:':1:'.:.:.;-',' Ll/ 1. PAR'TItSLIl-ARS ©RTI-)E?PETITI©NER,: '^- .'. •• '"\:..'.. ' '•".".' .'.'':'......-..."':.' '^.:-'..: "• •'.... '. •••.-.•/.:''^•' ':.." "..;:':: '':'..../'.' '.;"..'.. As per the causetifle; >sa: ..^^•. '^v HI©HCOURT QF CHHATTfSGARH : BILASPUR PETiTiONER RESPONDENTS WRIT PEfn'SOM (SVM0.2306 OF 201& . SJ.Smgh ' Versus -',.••;. '.: Statepfehhattisgarh&Othere (WritP^ition und6rAticfe 226 ofthe Constitution of India) Single Bench ; !-!on'ble Shri Satish K. Agnihotri, J. Present:-3nriShaiiemiraDut3e^Ad\^atBf6rth^peSition^ ShrlP.K.BhadurLPanell-awyerforlheStete. 3ER(QRA!-) ,- ^ / :';:': (Passed oh tt«!s6thyayofUay, 2S1©) By the present petitipn, the petitioner chaHenges^the order dated 22-1-20Q8 ^nnexure P/1) wherebya sum of Rs.36,538/- has besn deducted from the retiral dues of ie petitioner, hoidina it to be excess payment rnatie to the petitioner, during the course pf his servjce. : .' 1 ,•,"....,::.•..••• :.::; ::;^ :.. '. '. , • Shri Dybey, learnedcOunsel appeanngforttiepetitiQri^rsubmifsthat the petitioner, working as Deptity'DiyisionalForesfQfficer.retired from service on attaining the age of superarmuatipn in the month of 4uly,2007. Duringthe-courseofsetllementW of RS.36^3S|^.was:^eauc<edih0iaiRg;tt^ be^exc^sspayment;^^ tteRetitioneFdurjng;th6eoijrse^ttis>seryi .^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ Shri Dubey farther submits that We.issue astowhether recovery c^^ excess paymerrt for np feuit Of the emptoyee can be made without tolicwingfheprin&ptescfnaturaljusBceisnotongerfesOTfegra.The same has been settled by i-lon'bie Supreroe Court in Yarious decisions (See Syed AtidulQaellrandothersv. StatBofBiharanil ofte^. This Court, Telying'on ths aboye dwisions has^ ^^ several prders, direetihg rgfynd ofth®jarnount,ifanytrecovered from theempioyees,wheret>'teemployeeswerenotgivenanyoRportunity fo ^plain about fhe^excess p^ Qubey further wntendSWat any recoveryfrom retirald madeoniyincasefltherewasanymisrepresentationorfeudoh^t^ part of the empioyee and the employee had knowledge that the 3 SCC 475 Gowri -L ^ payment was recejved in excess. The error, if any, coyld have been corrected within a short span oftime from wrong payment. 4. t.eamed counsel appearing forthe respondents does notdisputethe • above submission made by tearned counsel appearing for the petitioner. However, he submits thatthe simiiar order may Be passed, subject tovenfication offacts. 5. This Court, as well as Hon'ble Supreme Court, in a catena of decisions, time and again reiterated that no recovery of excess payment for no fault ofthe employee can be made withoutfollowing the principles ofhaturaljustice.ThisGoyrt m RamcliandraKurupv. State of C.G. A offters and other connected matters, decided on 23riNovember, 2009, observed as uncier "19. A cpmmon thread running jnto tHe aboye decisions of the Supreme Coyrt is that, for recovery of excess payment of emoluments/ allowances, there are three conditions wherein the excess payment maybe reeovered, namely ' (9 ©(Cess payment was made on aecount of misrepresentation pr fraud 6n the part of the employee; (ii) theemployeehadknpwledgethat tha payment received was in excess, and (iii) the error was correctedwithin ashortspanoftimeof wrong payment.........," 6. In view pf tte forgoing, the impugned OFderdated 22/1/2008 (Annexure P/1) directing recovery Rs.36,538/- on account of excess payment made to the petitioner, is hereby quashed. If the amount has aiready been recovereci, the ptetitjQner js entitied to the said amount with jnterest at the rate 6f 6% per annum, subject to verification offacts. 7. However, liberty is reserved to the State/respondents that if the excess payment has been made on account of misrepresentation or fraud on the part of the emplpyee, or the employee had the knowledge that the payment received by him wais ih excess, fresh orders may be issued on verification bf the facis, after affording opportunityofhearingtothepetitioner. 8. Thewritpetition is accordingiyciisposed of. 9. NoOrderastocosts.^^.^^ ^^ ^^^^^^^ ^^^ ^ J^ Sd'' •-f- s^^^ ibotn 2W.P.(S)No.3663of2009