SINGLE BENCH C P f b~ IN THE^IIGH COURT OF CHHATriSGARH AT BILA8PUR W. P. (S) No. ^^/ (/ OF 2010, PETITIONER ../ ^^. •\£'^"^^ Surendra Kumar Shrivastava, S/o. Shri late Shri Tara Prasad Shrivastava, aged aboi.it 64 years/R/o. Panchsheel Colony, Sector-1, Plot No. -11, Stree;t-3, Borsi, District Durg (C. G.). VERSUS R^SPONDENTS ^a.^^ /.•^/ j»y^ l^ /•' l'».is.^»Nfc^llfr ^ ^ ^•s. ^^ 'T^^: :1. Stateof Chhattisgarh; Through : The SecrefaEiiy, Water Resource Departmefit, D..K.S. Bhawan, Raipur (C. G.) 2. Divisional, Joint Director, Treasuty, Accounts and Pension, Division Raipur, District Raipur (C.O.) 3. Executive Engineer, E /M, L. M. Tubewell and Qate Division Durg, Districi Durg (C.(L) WRIT PBTITION UNDER ARTICI/E 326J;)FTHE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA L..._., 3\ HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARHAT BILASPUR (Hon. Mr. Justice Pritinker Diwaker) Writ Petition (S) No. 3314 of 2010 PETITIONER RESPONDENTS VERSUS Surendra Kumar Shrivastava State of Chhattisgarh and others Shri Somkant Verma counsel for the petitioner. Shri Vivek Sharma PL for the respondents/State. WRIT PEtlTION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA ORDER (29.09.2010) Challenge in the present writ petition is to the order dated 28.2.2007 passed by respondent No.2 whereby the amount of Rs. 33,461 has been deducted frorn the retiral dues of the petitioner holding the same to be paid in excess during the course of his service. 2. Case of the petitioner is that in the year 1970 he was appointed as Fitter by respondent No.3 and retired from service on 30.6.2006 after attaining the age of superannuation and at that time he was working as junior mechanic. 3. Counsel for the petitioner submits that the issue as to whether recovery of the excess payment for no fault of the employee can be made without complying with the principle of natural justice is no longer res integra andthe same has been settled by the Supreme Court in various cases including the case in the matter of Syed Abdul Qadir and others v. State of Bihar and others reported in (2009) 3 SCC 475 and relyihg on that judgment various orders have been passed by this Court directing refund of the excess amourit if any recovered from the employees. He submits that any recovery from theretiral dues can be m?de in case there was any misrepresentation or fraud committed '.^^, '^K -p / "^'—.^'._f "&i:^,.^ "- ^ -^/ •%%s^^^'-" T^- by the petitioner and that he had the knowledge that the payment received by him is in excess. 4. Counsel for the respondents/State does not dispute the above factual position. He however submits that liberty may be given to the State Government to recover the said amount if the same has been obtained by the petitioner on account of any misrepresentation or fraud on his part or that he had the knowledge that payment received by him was in excess. 5. In view of the foregoing factual and legal position, the order impugned dated 28.2.2007 annexure P-1 directing recovery of Rs. 33,461 on account of excess payment made to the petitioner is quashed. It is informed that the amount has already been recovered from the petitioner and therefore he is entitled to get back the same with interest at the rate of six per cent per annum subject to verification of facts. However, liberty is reserved to the State that if the excess payment has been made to the petitioner on account of misrepresentation or fraud on thepart of the employee or the employee has the knowledge that the paymentreceived by him was in excess, fresh orders may be issued on verification of the facts after affording opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. 6. Petition is thus disposed of. No order as tocosts. Sd/- Pritinker Diwaker Judge