‘§ (D (§.J/éf0’/ $§E€§£E E3E2ix§€§é§ IN THE HON’BLE HEGH COURT OE CHHATEISSARH AT BELASPUR (ca) ‘ 2 VERSUS / RESPONDENTS The Biack Educatian Qfficer, Pratappur, District Surguja {QS‘L a5 Gupteshwar 33rasad Jaiswal, aged abnut 52 years, San 9f Late Shri Jagdish Prasad Jaiswaiy Retired Headmaster, Resident of Pratappur? Distriist Surguja (66,). State af Chhattisgarhj thmugh: the Secretary: Triba: Devetapment Departmezat, Dias. Bhawan, Raipur, DistrEct RaEpur (C.G.}. we Assistant Cgmmisséimer, Tribal Devakapment, Ambikapur, District Sur’guja ma), The Jaint Eirectgr, Tmasury, Amaunm and ?ens§9ag Ambikagur, Distréct Surguja {CLG‘L WRIT P£TEIIQN UNSER ARTICLE 22§ OE T§-§E £GNSTITUTIGNT QF I§é§IA mum EEIIHQN {s4 Ne 5‘3 1% OE 2mg PEHTEQNE% HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH : BILASPUR WR!T PETITION (S) NO.5318 OF 2010 Petitioner Gupteshwar Prasad Jaiswal Versus Respondents State of Chhattisgarh & Others’ (Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India) Single Bench : Hon’ble Shri Satish K. Agnihotri, J. Present :- Shri V.K. Pandey, Advocate for the petitioner. Shri A.V. Sridhar, Panel Lawyerfor the State. ORDER (ORAL) (Passed on this 14‘“ day of January, 201 1) 'i 1. Heared learned counsel for the parties. w 2. By this petition, the petitioner challenges the order dated 30.08.2010 (Annexure P/1), whereby a sum of Rs. 60,895/-, has been directed to be recovered from the retiral dues holding it to be excess payment made to the petitioner, during the course of his service and further seeks a direction to the respondent No.3 & 4 for finalizing the pension case of the petitioner without any deduction within stipulated period. 3. Shri Pandey, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner namely Gupteshwar Prasad Jaiswal working on the post of Headmaster, retired from service on 30.06.2010. During the course of settlement of the retiral dues and fixation of pension, vide the impugned order, a sum of Rs. 60,895/-, has been directed to be recovered holding it to be excess payment made to the petitioner during the course of his a serVlce. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the issue asto whether recovery of excess payment for no fauit of the empioyee can be made without foilowing the principles of natural justice is no longer res integra. The same has been settled by the Supreme Court in various decisions (See Syed Abdul Qadir and others v. State of Bihar am} othersi). 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, if any, made to them. Shri Pandey further submits that any recovery from retiral dues can be made only in case if there was any misrepresentation or fraud on the part of the employee and the . employee had knowledge that the payment received was in excess, and the error was corrected within a short span of time of wrong payment Shri Sridhar, learned Panel Lawyer appearing for the State, does not dispute the 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. This Court as well as Hon’ble Supreme Court in a cafena of decisions, time and again reiterates that no recovery of excess payment for no fault of the employee can be made without following the principles of natural justice. This Court in Ramchandra Kurup Vs. State of C.G. & othersz and other connected matters, decided on 23m November, 2009, observed as under: 2 1 (2009) 3 SCC 475 W P (S) No 3663 of2009 ‘ “19. A common thread running into the above decisions of the Supreme Court is that, for recovery of excess payment of emoiuments/allowances, there are three conditions wherein the excess payment may be recovered, nameiy (i) excess payment was made on account of misrepresentation or fraud on the part of the employee‘ (ii) the empioyee had knowiedge that the payment received was in excess, and (iii) the error was corrected within a short span of time of wrong payment .......... " in view of the settied position of law on the point, the petition deserves to be and is ailowed. Accordingiy, the impugned orders dated 30.08.2010 (Annexure P/1) directing recovery of Rs. 60,895/—, on account of excess payment made to the petitioner, is hereby quashed. The respondent authorities may thereafter settlethe pensionary benefits in accordance with iaw. No order asto costs. The above order shall subject to verification of facts. fiM, i Satish K. Agnihmri Judge Sdl-