p^^ IN THE HI6H COURT OF CHHATn:S6ARH AT BILASPUR PETETIONER WRIT PETETION (S) NO...?.\:.X./..OF 2011 •f^" RESPONDENTS ^^ ^^•••••^ y- ^?-?^ ^!^, ^"2^ ^Utt^ bhansingh Yadav S/o Late Tejram yadav, /^ged about 39 years, working os Multipurpous Health Worker (Male) Sub-Communiti Health Center, Nansinya Primary Health Center, Loing, Tahsil <& Dist. Raigaph (C.G.) VERSUS Ir" State of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary Health Department D.K.S. Bhawan Mantralaya, Raipur {C.G.) The Director, Heatth Services Raipur Dist. Raipur (C.G.) . Chief Medical Officer District Hospital Raigarh bist. Raigarh (C.G.) . Block Medical Officer, Block- Dharamjaigarh, Distt- Raigarh (C.G.) 2. 3. ^': 4. WRIT PETCTCON UNDER ARTCCLE 226 OF COUNSTCTUTCON OF INblA. THE _ TL^Q- k^-*^}-!-;-^^^ ^-. ffcl^ 1 ^ss^ l; ^ %!S^J^^ '^s^ t ^ ^ HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH : BILASPUR WRIT PETITION (S) N0.3127 of 2011 PETITIONER Dhansingh Yadav Versus RESPONDENTS State of Chhattisgarh & Others (Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India) Single Bench: Hon'ble Shri l\|anindra Mohan Shrivastava, J. Present:- Shri R. S. Patel, counsel for the petitioner. Shri Vinay Pandey, Panel Lawyer for theState. ORDERfORAL) (Passed on this 28th day of June,2011) Though, on the last date of hearing, one opportunity was granted to the State counsel to seek instructions and inform the Court as to whether the petitioner was given notice/opportunity of hearing before passing the impugned order of recovery, learned State counsel js not in a position to say in the matter and instructions are still awaited. 2. This petition has been filed by the petitioner aggrieved by the order dated 14-11-2007 (Annexure P-1) passed by the respondent No.3 as also order dated 31-03-2008 passed by the respondent No.4, by which, the respondents have directed recovery against the petitioner on the ground that the petitioner was wrongly granted increments. 3. Assailing the aforesaid order, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was granted annual increments after consideration of his entitlement and the petitioner did not mislead the authorities and the order of grant of increments was not an outcome of any fraud or misrepresentation. He submits that the order of recovery could not be passed without affording the petitioner proper opportunity of hearing to show cause against the order. Further submission of learned counsel for the petitioner is that under any circumstances, the amount, which has already been paid to the petitioner, could not be recovered 8 J ^ '•^•^^•^^^^ j- -z- ^7r> unless it isestablished in an enquiry that the excess payment was made on the basis of any fraud or misrepresentation. Insupport of his submission, learned counsel for the petitioner relies upon the decision of this Couri: in the case of Avinash Anand Walter and others vs. State of Chhattisgarh and others (Writ Petition (S) Wo.2277of2008;decided on 05-05-2010, wherein it has been held :- "This Court as well as Hon'ble Supreme Court in a catena 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 Chhattisgarh & others, (W.P.(S)No.3663 of 2009) and other connected matters, decided on 23rd November, 2009, observed as under;- "19. A common thread running into the above decisions of the Supreme Court is that, for recovery of excess payment of emoluments/allowances, there are three conditions wherein the excess payment may be recovered, namely (i) excess payment was made on account of misrepresentation or fraud on the part of the employee, (ii) the employee had knowledge that the payment received was in excess, and (iii) the error was corrected within ashort span oftime ofwrong payment...." 4. On the other hand, learned State counsel submits that the impugned order clearly shows that the petitioner was not entitled to certain increments and the same was wrongly granted and as and when, this came to light, the authorities rightly issued the order directing recovery from the petitioner. 5. It has not been disputed that no opportunity of hearing was afforded by issuing any notice to the petitioner againstthe action of recovery. Therefore, on this very ground, this petition deserves to be allowed. 6. Accordingly, the impugned orderdated 14-11-2007 & 31-03-2008 (Annexure - P/1 & P-2) directing recovery of excess payment made to the petitioner is hereby quashed. If the amount has already been recovered, the //^\ y ^ ll^;,,^^, t., l^; i ^'^'^^.. ^ ^•^'^ :. z petitioner is entitled to refund of the said amount, subject to verification of facts. However, liberty is reserved to the State/respondents to take any steps, if so advised, in accordance with law for recovery of excess payment, if any. 7. The petition is allowed to the extent indicated above. 8. There shall be no order as to costs. Sd/- Manindra Mohan Shrivastava Judge ^•\.