— C^ \0^ SEfijGS C ra-'nana SSMSjLF BFN?!?i IN THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISHGARH AT BILASPUR (C.G.l W.P.(S) No. M 2010 ^ .•••\<h*''\V-''' .^'y^"" ^e./"" s<° -^•'* Respondents o Petitioner ... Likhan Lal Sahu aged 68years Son of Shri Dhan Singh Sahu, Retd. Asstt. Teacher, Govt. Primary School, Mohad,. Tah. Dongargaon, R/o Matiya, Ward No. 12, 491661 Distt. Rajnandgaon.(C.G.) Versus z! 1. State Government of Chhattishgarh, Through the Secretary, School Education Department, D.K.S. Bhavan, Raipur (C.G.) y 2. Divisional Joint Director, Kosh, Lekha and Pension, RaipurCG 3. DistrictTreasury Officer, Rajnandgaon. 7& ??'.!\^\ Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India \'£.\ ral for issuance^otwrit of Mandamus/direction or anv other apgrQpnate^wnt, 1-~^.. ^ HIGH COURTOFCHHATTISGARH : BILASPUR PETITIONER WRIT PETITION (S) N0. 141 OF 2010 Likhan Lal Sahu Versus RESPONDENTS State Government of Chhattisgarh & others. (Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India) Single Bench : Hon'ble Shri Satish K. Agnihotri, J. Present:- Shri Somkant Verma, Advocate for the petitioner. Shri M.P.S. Bhatia, Deputy Goverriment Advocate with Shri A.V. Sridhar, Panel Lawyer for the State. ORDER (ORAL) (Passed on this 29th day ofApril, 2010) 1. Challenge in this petition is to the order dated 31.07.2004 (Annexure P/1), whereby a sum of Rs. 24,024/- (Rupees Twenty Four Thousand and Twenty Four) towards excess payment made to the petitioner has been directed to be recovered from the retiral dues. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the issue asto whether recovery for excess payment, for no fault of the employee, can be made without following the principles of natural justice is no longer res integra. The issue has been settled by Hon'ble Supreme Court in various decisions (See Syed Abdul and others vs. State of Bihar and others ). This Court, relying on the above decisions has passed several orders, directing refund of the amount, if any, recovered from the employees, where the employees were not given any opportunity to explain about the excess payment, ifany, made to them. Learned counsel appearing for the respondents does not dispute ffie above submission made by learned counsel appearing for the petitioner. However, he submits that the similar order may be passed, subject to verification of facts, asto whether the petitioner 1 (2009) 3 SCC 475 '^ haspbtained.tlieexeessamoyntonmisrepreseritatienoFfraud^ the partOftl'ieemplpyee,; This Court as well as Hon'ble Supreme Court in a catena of decisions, ^me and agaiffi reiterates that no recovery of ex^^ payment for no faylt of^e employee can be made witlTout fbllowing ^the prindples^^ RaiTichaiKfra Kuryp ^ corinected mattere, dgcfd^ oh;23 Noverrtber, 2009, observed^^a^^^^ under:::.' ; •• • .•::".: ;:^ .:. . •l.:- .- • ;;. .' . . : :. :::.:i .; ,.1 ''19.Aieommon;|thread rynning into the M> ' ' • ' '. . •';1: l.l:'':ab@vg^asi^n^;<ift^ th^,i®rrgsc»/ery^'of;e3a;ess p^ emQluments/allQw^nces, therg are thrge cpnditjoris ^hei^jn Ihe excess^^p may be recovered, namely |(i) exeess pa^meqt ^.was ^mad^ <3n ^CGQunf^^^^^ misret»resentation ol''f[!aud on ||he pa of the emplQyee,^ (ii) the emplbyee ha^ knQwle^ggthattBep^menfreiSeivedwas in excess, and (iii)theirrOTjVrascor^ wittiin a short^span ofitiW^ paymgHt:..'...^.."'-—;••..•:,. :. .';1'' : : '•^'^ In view of the settli^ pE)Siti@R^ deserves to be andiis allQweEl,?^ei;QFaingly^ dated 31.07.2004 <Annexure|P/1),dirB^ 24,024/- on aeGount pf excess l^yment made'^^^^^^ herebyiqua^ed.1ftheampuhthas£ilreadybeenl^TOve!rSd|tHe petitionerisentitled^offiesai<lam(^ntwi1fe:jnterest^^^ 6% per annum, subject f6 verifiGation of^acts, abQyttheifaetthat whether the petitioner has ol^in^Ptlie jexcess am^ misrepresentation or fraud on the (|>art OfjtBe petitiOner. No;|ord^r asto'costs. - •.., :• :'', , •:: ^:^-,'i::-'^ Sd/- iftTISH K. AfiNMOTRI Judge «B