a - t^ \G^ ss^^ y&NCl" (^ IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR W. P. (S)No. O0^ OF 201]:. SS9 PETITIONER ^)^ ,..-• ^w'' <<: ^yy ^ ..-•-"" Tiharu Ram Sahu, S/o. late Shri Kushal Rarn Sahu, aged about 68 years, (?etired Patwari, R/o. Village Golkumhada, Block Charama, District Kanker (C.G.). « y-1" *- '^ <fs'~ RESPONDENTS V ERS U S ^ : 1. State of Chhattisgarh, Through : The Secretary, Revenue Department, D.K.S. Bhawan, Raipur (C. G.) ^ 2. Divisional, Joint Director, Treasury, Accounts and Pension, Division Jagdalpur, District Bastar (C. G.) ^ 3. The Tahsildar, Bhanupratappur, Tahsil Bhanupratappur, District Kanker (C.G.) ^ s.^ WRIT PETITION UNDERARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA The petitioner named above begs to submit as under: '^—'•TiJT ffH'n8' HIGI-lGOUR-ROK.GHHATnSGARH : BILASPUR WRIT PETITK3N (S) N0.1307 OF 201 1 PETITIONER Tiharu Ram Sahu RESPONDENTS Versus State of Chhattis^rh & Others 1 (Writ Petitlon under Article 226 ofthe Constitution of tndia) Singte Bench: Hon'ble Shri Satish K. Agnihotri, J. 1<N Present:- Shri Somkant Verma, Advocate for the petitioner. Shri P.K.Bhaduri, Panet Lawyerforthe Stat^respondents. ORDERfORALl (Passed on 10"' day ofMareh, 2011) 1. Chaltenge in this petition is to the order dated 27.07.2005 (Annexure P/1) whereby, a sum of Rs. 48,795/- has been directed to be recovered from the retrial dues of the petttioner, hoUfng it to be excess payment made to the petitioner during the eouree of his service. 2. Shri Verma, leamed counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner, while working as Patwari in the Revenue Department, retired from service 31.10.2004 on attrining the age of syperannyation, Apcqrding to Shri yiemwi, the impugned recovery has been made without affording an opf»rtunity pf heanng ^tp the petitioneri and further, the jssue asto whether recpwiy of excess payniientcan be niade iwthotrt following pnndRtes t»fnatural ju^ice is no [on^r ms irstegra, fte same ha&been settted by th&Supreme CouriintheiTiatterofSa^Ram^^ further followaJ by this Cpurt in the matterpf VKtya<ffiarT9wariv.The St^qfChhatB^aih&Q^r^s^ys^^^n^TSi^w.S^ M.P. (Naw Stafe of CW?a(ft^E^;s/iy oftere^Wd ;tt'rei^t^>toH(^^ in several decisrons. * 3. ThisCourt jn ®sm(^ano%/<wupv.SteteofC.G.& Offfer'^aavlffQw connectedfflatteTs,observedasunder: ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ ^ "'19. A common thread rurming into V abeve ; decisfons oftheSupremi&Courttethat.lor.^^ crfexcess^payment ofemdum»rts^aHowance8,there8 11995Supp(1)SCC18 2 2005 (1}-UPHT 105 (00) 32Qqe(2)MPHT31(CG) 42010(3)CGLJ40& , w^^AireeriaBtxl<tiqns wrtiereln the »«» |M^nw»t ; ; ' may be recbvered, nemely (O ©ffie^paymen^ made on accpunt of mlsrepresentaUon or ftaud on the part of the emptoyee, (ii) the employee had knowledge that the payment received was in excess, and (iii) the error was corraded within sishort Sfan T of time of wrong payment. ....." 4. Leamed counsel appearing for the State/respondents <toes rert controvert the submisslons made by leamed counsel forthe petitioner and submits that this matter may be dlsposed of in the same terms. 5. In view of the foregolng and as admitted by leamed counsel appearing for the parties, this petition is disposed of in the terms of the order passed in thecase of Ramchandra Kurup". i.e. the impugned order dated 27.07.2005 (Annexure P/1) regarding recovery of an amcwnt of Rs. 48,795/- from the retrial dues of the petltiwer on account of excess payment, is hereby quashed? The petiticner is entitled to fult l;«n8ionary benefits/gratuity aiTwurrt wtthout any deduGtioft lf4h^^^ amount has been recovered, the p^itl(mer Is entitled to the said svnourtt. :w 6: Howeyer, jt is open tpthe respqrKients totake recoyisetp Rut&6Sof the Chhatti^arh Civil &wwoeg (Pensipn) Rutes, 1&re, ifso advteed, in accordance with la\w, a^ foHowing bs^ principtes^o^natural justice." ^,-" : • - — .' ' ._—s -—.— -—- — /' K. AgBihotri Judge ashok