l;^t^ C^-\^_ Q) ^ IN THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR fW.P.(S)No. ...^'rff.z77...../09) PETITIONER VERSUS RESPONDENDS 1- ^ ^y <<!>- {>«•• >-; Cy;-- O /..-''- O..' o ;.*' •••' ^,..<?''\ \ ,w" '£.••' ^ ,^) 2. ^Srf( Mangal Ram S/o. Late Shri Sori Ram, aged about - 67 year, R/o. Village - Ranikombo, P. O. - Narayanpur , Tahsil - Kunkuri, District - Jashpur (C.G.) State of Chhattisgarh, Through: Secretary Tribal welfare Department, D.K.S. Bhavan, Raipur (C.G.) The Block Education Officer, Tribal welfare Department Kunkuri , Tah - Kunkuri District Jashpur (C.G.) The Assistant Director, Treasury Accounts& Pension Division Office, Bilaspur (C.G.) The Treasury Officer, Treasury Office Jashpur District Jashpur (C.G.) WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF CONSTITUTION OF INDIA 3. 4. HiGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BiLASPUR PETSTIONER SPON! VVSiT PETiTION ('S) No. 5852 of 2009 !a!Ran VERSUS State of Chhattisgarh & Others. VVR!T PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CQNSTITUTION OF i: Hon'ble Shri Sati'sh K. Aanihotri, .J. Present: ynn ShriA K. Pandey, Advocate for tne petitioner. •Shridhar, Panel La'Ayer for the State/respondents. >ffl (Passsd on 08"' day of January, 2010) With the consent of learned counsel appearing for the parties, the petition is heard finaily. The petitioner, vvorking as Head Master, retlred frorn service on attaining the age of superannuation on 31.07.2005 from the office of Block Education Officer, Kunkuri, District Jashpur. Chailenge in this petition is to t.he order dated 04.10,2005 (Annexure P/1), whereby a sum of Rs. 14,935/- has been ordered to be deducted from the retirai dues holding it to be excess payment rnade to the petiiioner during the course of his service. Learned counsel appearing for ihe petitior.er submits that the petitioner was not given any opportunity to expiain about ths payment made to him. Thus, the impugned order is vitiated for want of compliance of the principles of natura! justice and fair play in action. Learned counsei further submits that there'is no fault on the Dart ofthe Detitioner and the amount was paid to him In accordance with fhe pay scales, revised and flxed by the respondents rrorn time to time. The respondents cannot recover the amount, already paid to the petitioner Vi.'ithout foliowing the principles of naturai justice. StSS-^^,^ Sst, ~%. ^ Ji; A.1' :°>^' Learned counsei appearing for the respondents submits that if the excess payment was made to the petitioner, the same can be recovered at the time of settiement of retiral dues. The issue asto 'whether recovery of excess payment for no fault of the employee can be made without foliowing the principies of natura! justice is no longer res integra. The same has been settied by Hon'ble Supreme Couri in various decisions. !n Syed Abdul Qadir and ot'ners vs. State of Bihar and others , Hon'ble Three Judges of the Supreme Court, having consldered aii the aspects of the matter and the decisions rendered by the Suprerne Court In the past, obsewed as under: "57. This Court, in a catena of decisions, has iranted reiief 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 applylng a wroni principle for calculating the pay/aliowance or cn 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 empioyess, but in equity, exereising judicia! discretion to relieve the employees from the hardship that will be caused if recovery is ordered. But, if in a given case, 't Is proved that the employee had knowiedge that the payment received was in excess of what v.'as due or wrongly paid, or in cases where the error is detected or corrected wit'nin a short time of wrong payment, the matter being in the reaim of judicial discretion, courts may, on the facts and circumstances of any particular case, order for recovery of the amount paid in excess. See Sahlb Ram v. State of Haryana, Shyam Babu Verma v. Union of india, Union of India v. M. Bnaskar, V. Gangaram v. Director, Col. B.J.Akkara (Retd.) v. Govt. of india, Purshottam Lal Das v. State of Bihar, Punjab Nationai Bank v. Manjeet Singh and Bihar SEB v. Sijay Bhadur." (2009) 3 SCC 475 7. This Court as weli as Hon'bie Supreme Court in a catena of decisions, time and again reiterates t.hat no recovery of excess payment for no fault ofthe employee can be made without following the principies of natural justice. This Court in Ramchandra Kurup 1/s. Stafe of C.G. & others and other connected matters, decided on 23 November, 2009, observed as under: "19. A common thread runnina into the above decislons of the Supreme Court is that, for recovery of excess payment of emoiuments/allowances, there are thres conditions wherein the excess payment may be recovered, nameiy (i) excess payment was made on account of rnisrepresentation or fraud on the psrt of the empioyee, (ii) the employee had knowledge that the payment received was in excess, and (iii) the error was corrected within a short span oftime ofwrong payment." In vievv of the forgoing, the petition is allowed. The impugned order dated 04.10.2005 (Annexure P/1), directing recovery of Rs. 14,935'- on account of excess payment made to the petitioner, is hereby quashed, If the amount has already been recovered, the petitioner is entitied to the said amount with interest at the rate of 6% per annurn, subject to verification of facts. No order asto costs, Sd/- Satish K. Agnihotri Judge 1