.-.^ IN THE HON'BLE HI(5H COURT OF CWATT1SGAW AT BILASPUR W. P. (S} No ^6< of ZQlQ SI^ FM^V ^<y?gj IENI PIETITIONER / y> ?.ov--" ^%-' ^Xa/'^y ^rW ^^y ^'l..--' ^-' .y ^ ^' RESPONbENTS Vijay Kumar Khare, aged about 63 years, S/o Late Shri Bhagwan Prasad Khare, Retired upper Division Teacher, ^overnment Multipurpose Higher Secondary School, Rajnangaon, R/o Kilapara, Rajnangaon (C.&.) VERSUS :1. ^ State of Chhattisgarh Through : The Secretary School Education Department, D.K.S. Bhawan Raipur (C.&.) ^' 2. Joint Director Treasuries. accounts <& Pension, Raipur, District-Raipur (C.&.) 3. bistrict Education Officer. Rajnandgaon, District- Rajnandgaon (C.O.) 4. Block Education Officer. Rajnandgaon, District- Rajnandgaon (C.&.) 5. Principal, ^overnment Multipurpose Higher Secondary School, Rajnandgaon (C.G.) ^ ^- t -L.. WRIT PETITTHM l ^f(^ER ARTI^LE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF TMpi^. ii ^ S-HGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH : BiLASPUR WRIT PETtTiON (S) N0.365 OF 2010 PETETIONER Vijay Kumar Khare Versus Stete of Chhaffisgarh & Others RESPONDENTS (Writ Petition under Articie 226 ofthe Constitution of india) Singie Bench : Hon'bie Shri Satish K. Agnihotri, J. Present:- Shri K.S. Pawar, Advocate for the petitioner. Shri Ajit Slngh, Panei Lawyer for the State/respondente. ORDER (ORAU (Passed on thls 22nd day of March. 2011) 1. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. The petitioner is aggrieved by the order Annexure P/2, whereunder the petltioner was directed to deposit the excess payment Rs.30,130/- made to him dunng the period from 01-01-1998 to 31-03-2006. 3. According to iearned counsei appearing for the petitloner, the impugned recovery has been made without affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, and further, the issue asto whether recovery of excess payment can be made wlthout foliowing princlpies of naturai lustice is no longer res integra, the same has been settied by the Supreme Court in the matter of Sahlb Ram v. State of Haryana and ofhers, and further followed by this Court in the matter of Vkiyadhar Tiwari v. The State of Chhattisgart) & Offiers^ and Vidya ShankarTiwari v. State ofM.P, (Naw State of ChfiaWsgarh) am! oihers3 and thereafter foltowed In several dedsions. 4. This Court in Ramchandra Kurup v. State of C.G. & Others4 and other connected matters, observed as under : !lS95Supp(1)SCC18 22006(1)'MPHT105(CG) 3 2006 (2) MPHT 31 (CG) 4 2010 (3jCGU 400' -s^^ \ "T^'y^ " 8 •-'ss^^. "' h, ^^^'' '^^•^•€^' 6. 9- "19. A common thread runnlng into the above dedsions of the Supreme Court is that, for recovery of excess payment of emoiuments/aliowances, there are three conditions wherein the excess payment may be recovered, nameiy (J) excess payment was made on account of mlsrepresentation or fraud on the part of the empioyee, (ii) the emptoyee had knov/!edge that the payment received v/as in excess, and (iii) the error was corrected wlthln a short span of time of wrong payment......" Despite sufficient opportunity granted to the State/respondenits, they have faiied to file response. However, iearned counse! appearing for the Stete/respondents does not controvert the submisstons made by learned counsel for the petitioraer and submits that this matter may be dlsposed of in the same terms. jn view of the foregoing and as admltted by learned counsel appearing for the parties, thls petition is disposed of in the terms of the order passed in the case of Ramchandra Kuwp4. ie. the impugned order Annexure P/2 regarding recovery proceedings on account of excess payment, is hereby quashed. if the amount has been recovered, the petitioner is entitied to the said amount. However, It is open to the respondents to take reeourse, if so advlsed, in accordance with Saw, after foiiowing basic princlples of naturai justice. Arun Sd/- SatishK.Agnihotri Judge