d3 a K (Haw? iN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF CHI-IATTISGARH AT BILASPUR wms.) No. 6055K /2009 PETITIONER: ,1“ Kanhaiyalal Patel ‘ S/o Shri Ram Prasad Patel, .Iv '0 Aged about 62 years, Retired g Veternary Field Assistant Officer, Xv R/o Patel Sadan Kamla Nagar, 5K \° Beladula~Raigalh, Distt Raigarh «A $3¢7Cw> (C.G‘) j x) ..§\\’J"I:§,x' é”? VERSUS RESPONDENTS x 1. State of Chhattisgarh / Through : The Secretary, Veternaty 8L Animal Husbandary Service Department D.K.S. Bhawan, Raipur (C.G.) The Joint Director Treasury Account and Pension Bilaspur District Bilaspur (C.G.) y 1, 3. Deputy Director of Veternary Services Raigarh, District Raigarh (C.G.) WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA FOR ISSUANCE OF WRIT IN NATURE OF MANDAMUS CERTIORARY OR ANY OTHER WRIT OF LIKE NATURE ETC. The petitioner most humbly and respectfully begs to J submit as under : AF< W HIGH COURT OF CHHA’I‘TISGKRH : BILASPUR _ Writ Petition (S) No, 6052 of 2009 Petitioner Kanhaiyalal Patd Versus Respondents State of Chhattisgarh & others M WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA (SB: Hon’ble Shri Satish K. Agnihotn‘ J.) Shri Sanjay Patel, Advocate for the petitioner. Shii A. V. Shridhar, Panel Lawyer for the respondents. o R D E R (0m!) (Passed on this 3rd day of December, 2009) Heard. Challenge in this petition is to the order dated 5.9.2007 (Annexure P/ 2), whereby a sum of Rs. 20,969/ — (Rupees Twenty Thousand, Nine Hundred and Sixty—nine) towards excess payment made to the petitioner has been directed to be recovered nom the retiral dues. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was not given any opportunity to explain about the payment made to him. Thus, the impugned order is vitiated for want of compliance of the principles of natuml justice and fair play in action. Learned counsel further submits that there is no fault on the part of the petitioner and the amount was paid to him in accordance with the pay scales revised and nxed by the respondents from time to tune The reason ass1gned for recovexy 1s not sustainable as there was no fault on the part of the petitioner The respondents cannot recover the amount, already paid to the petitioner without following the principles of natural justice. Learned counsel appearing for the respondents submits that if the excess payment was made to the petitioner, the same can. be recovered at the time of settlement of retiral dues The respondent-authorities have not followed the princ1p1es of natural Justice and the impugned action has been taken k1; Without aifording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. The practice of passing order involving civil consequences, without show cause notice or without ah‘ording an opportunity, is condemned. 5. The issue asto whether recovery of excess payment for no fault of the employee can be made without following the principles of natural justice is no longer res integra. The same has been settled by Hon’ble Supreme Court in various decisions. In Syed Abdul Qadir and others vs. state of Bihar and othersl, Hon’ble Three Judges of the Supreme Court, having considered all the aspects of the matter and the decisions rendered by the Supreme Court in the past, observed as under: “57. This Court, in a catena of decisions, has granted relief against recovery of excess payment of emoluments/allowances if (a) the excess amount was not paid on account of any misrepresentation or fraud on the part of the employee, and (b) if such excess payment was made by the employer by applying 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 Imowledge 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 a short time of wrong payment, the matter being in the realm of judicial discretion, courts may, on the facts and circumstances of any particular case, order for recovery 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. Gangaram v Director, Col B.J.Akkara (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. This Court as well as Hon’ble Supreme Court in a catena of decisions, time and again reiterates that no recovery of excess payment for no fault of the employee can be made Without following the principles of natural justice. This Court in l (2009) 3 sec 475 q/G ..——. 3 K Ramchandra Kurup Vs. state ofAC.G. & others? and other connected matters, decided on 23rd November, 2009, observed “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 naud as under: 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 7. In View of the forgoing, the petition is allowed. The impugned order dated 5.9.2007 (Annexure P/2), directing recovery of Rs. 20,969/~, 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, subject to verification of facts. No order asto costs. Sdl- . Satish K. Agnihotri Judge Thakur M 2 W.P.(S) No. 3663 of 2009 n.vj