EFORE THE HON’BLE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT ILASPUR (c G 3lnqle Bench RIT PETITION IS] NO go‘iE OF 201 0 anak Kumar Nande So Late Sh rlndawan ane, Aged about 61 /o Vlllage- Lomg, Post oing, District- Ragarh (C.G. PETITI’ONER J / rl V Ndy " yrs, ea VS ERSU ’ 1 hhh ] State of Cattlsgar g y Dp of Throuh Secretar eartment Fst DKS ore, ... Mantralaa, apur C.. Bhn, awa ] The omt 1rector ccouns“ Treasury and Pens1on B11aspur (C G) he ivsonal‘ Forest cer os“ iisi Darmjalarh lstr1ct aigarh ( WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF,’ ' a J I NDIA FOR ISSUENCE OF WRIT OR WRITS ORDER OR ORDERS : I " T RECTION OR DIRECTION NDER THE FACTS A-'3' RCUMDTANCES OF THE CASE A B . B ) R — L i ). y R‘i (G) " 2 J D At 3] T Dii Offi Fret Dvon hg D R C G ) / ' I To I S U ND z I HIGH COURT‘OF CHHATTISGARH : B¥LASPUR WRIT VPETITION {SQ NO. 5043 OF 2010 Janak Ktimar Nandé Versus I State of Chhattisgarh & Others (Writ Petition under Articie 226 of the Constitution‘of india) Single Bench Hon bie Shn Satlsh K Agmhotn J PETiTlONER RESPONDE‘NTS Present .— Shn S.K.Tlwan; Advocate for the petmoner. Shri P.K.Bhaduri, Panel Lawyer for the State. - ORDER gORAL) (Passed on this 5‘“ day of Aprll 201 1) Challenge m this petition is to the order dated 30 06 2009 (Annexure PH) whereby, a sum of Rs 1 19243l- has been directed to be recovered from the retrial dues of the petitioner holding rt to be 1 j excess payment made to the petitioner dunng the course of his ‘ t servrce ‘ 2. , L teamed counsel appearing tor the petitioner suhmits that the ‘ petitioner white working as Forest Guard retired from servrce on 31 1D 2009 on attaining the age of superannuation According to the petitioner, the impugned recovery has been made Without affording an V opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, and further, theissue asto whether recovery of eXcess payment canr be made without foliowing L'principies of natural justice is no longer res integra, the same has I been settled by the Supreme Court in the matter of :9ahib Ram v. State of Haiyana and others", and further followed by this Court in the matter of Vidyadhar Tiwan' v The State of Chhattisgarh & Othersz and Vidya Shankar Tiwari v State of M P (Now State of Chhatttsgarh) and others and thereafter followed in several decisrons This Court/in Ramchandra Kurup v. State of C.G. & Others" and other connected matters observed as under' ‘ “19 A common thread running into the above decisions of the Supreme Court is i 1995 Supp (1) soc 18 2 2008 (1i MPHT 105 (CG 3 2006 (2) MPHT 31 (CG) x t 2010 (3) CGLJ 400 E r ) [g ‘ that, for recovery of excess payment of emoluments/aiiowances, {here are fhree conditions wherem the excess payment may ‘be recovered, ‘namely (i) excess payment was made on account of misrepresentation or fraud on the part of .' the employee, (ti) 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 payment...... " Learned counsel appearing for the State/respondents does not controvert the submisswns made by learned counsel for the petitioner and submits that thls matter may be dlsposed of In the same terms ln View of foregomg and as admltted by learned counsel appearing for the parties, this petition is disposed of in the termsof the order passed in the case of Ramchandra‘ Kurtip". i.e. the impugned order dated 30 06 2009 (Annexure P/1) regarding recovery of an amount of Rs 1 19 243l- from the retrial dues of the petitioner on account of excess payment is hereby quashed However it Is open to the respondents to take recourse to the proylsmns ofthe Chhattlsgarh CM! Sen/ices (Pension) Rutes, 1976, if so advised, in accordance with law, after following basic principles of natural usti. Satlsh K Agnlho‘trl Judge sir jce