JN THE HON'BLEJDGH COURT OF CHHATHSGARH AT BUASPUR WRIT PETITION CS) No.t 1VV-S /2010 S B PETITIONER .kON n^°' .... ... - %^"" ff* RESPONDENTS ^>? VERSUS Rambaks Pal S/o Late Shri N.R.Pal^aged about 62 yrs By Post-Retired Manager, Special Programme Khadi, R/o-Mannu Chowk, Murty Gali, Tikarapara District-Bilaspur (C.G.) 1. The Chhattisgarh Khadi Tatha Gram Udyog Board. Through It& Managing Director Chhattisgarh Khadi Tatha Gram Udyog Board, New Shanti Nagar, District-Raipur 2. The State OfChhattisgarh Through- Secretary Department of Khadi Tatha Gram Udyog Board, DKS Bhawan, Mantralaya, District-Raipur (CG) 3. The Deputy Director (Khadi) Chhattisgarh Khadi and Gram UdyogBoard, ShantiNagar District-Raipur (CG) R" 2- 4. The DeputyDirector (Account) Chhattisgarh Khadi and Gram Udyog Board, Shanti Nagar, District-Raipur (CG) WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, 1950 FOR THE ISSUANCE OF WRIT IN THE NATURE OF CERTIORAM, MANDAMUS ETC AND FOR THE APPROPMATE ORDER/ORDERS, DIRECTION/ DIRECTIONS:- ^--^•'^, '1<^^ -^ .-r.' HIGH COURT OF CHHATTI8GARH AT BILASPUR WRIT PETITION (S) No. 1 149 of2010 PETmONER RESPONDENTS Rambaks Pal. VERSUS The Chhattisgarfa Khadi Tafha Gram Udyog Board & Othere. WRTT^ PE'm'ION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONS-nTU'nON OF INDIA SB: Hon'Me Shri Sattsh K. Aenihotri, J. Sfari Azad Siddique, Advoeate for the petitioner. Shri M.K.Bhaduri, Advocate for the respondent No. 1, 3 and Shri Sushil Dubey, G.A. forfhe State/respondent No. 2. ORUER(QRAL) (Passed oa 12 day of January, 2011) . Challenge in this petition is to the order dated 27.01.2010 (Armexure P/l) and 11.02.2010 (Annexure P/2) whereby a sum ofRs. 108635/- and Rs. 348497.75 has been direeted to be recovered from the General Provident Fund oftfae petitioner. . Shi-i Siddique, leamed counsel appearing fbr the petinoner submlts that fhe recovery orders, as afbrestated, have been issued after retirement of the petitioner from service on 31.01.2009, without aifording an opportunity of hearing and to put forward his case. He fiirfher submits that it is against the well settied prmciples oflaw that no recovery can be made afler retirement ofthe service except where fhe excess payment was made on account of niisrepresentation or fraud on the part of the employee, the employee had knowledge that payment received was in excess, and, thirdiy, the error was corrected within a short span of time of wrong payment, as heid by this Court ifl Ramchandra Kiirup v. State ofC.G. & Others , which is not the case on hand. 3. Shri Bhaduri, leamed counsel appearing fbr fhe respondent No, 1, 3 aad 4 fairlv submits fhat no show cause notice was issued to fhe petitoiner nor he was affbrded any opportunity to put forward his case during the service time and admittedly, the service conditions of Ihe employees ofthe respondent-Board are govemed by the State Civil Ser»'iceRules. 4. Shri Dubey, leamed Govemment Advocate appearing for the State/respondent No. 2 advances sunilar submission. 5. The issue asto whether recovery of excess payment can be made without following principles ofnaturaljustice is no longer res integra, the same has been settled bv the Supreme Court ia tfae matter ofSahib Ram v. State ofHaryana and others^, and lurther followed by this Court in the matter of Vidyadhar Ti'wari v. The State ofChhattisgarh & Othery' and Vidya Shankar Tiwari v. State ofM.P. (Now State of Chhattisgarh) and others and thereafter followed in several decisions. 6. This Court in Ramchandra Kurup and other connected matters, t observed as under: "19. A common thread numing into the above decisions of tlie Supreme Court is that, for recovery of excess payment of emoluments/aUowaiices, tliere are three conditions whereinthe excess paymentmay be recovered, namely (i) excess payment was made on account of misrepresentation or fraud on the part ofthe employee, (ii) the 1 WP (S)No.3663 of 2009 decided on 23-11-2009 21995Supp(I)SCC18 3 2006(1)MPm-105 (C( 42006(2)MPHT31(CG)m employee had knowledge that the payment received was in excess, aiid (iii) the error was corrected within a short span oftime of wrong payment......" 7. In view ofthe foregoing and as adnntted by leamed counsel appearing for the parties, this petition is disposed of in the terms of the order passed in the case of Vidyadhar Tiwari . i.e. the impugned orders dated 27.01.2010 and 11.02.2010 (Annexure P/l and P/2) regarding recovery ofamount from the retiral dues ofthe petitioner, is hereby ouashed. 8. Accordingly, the petitioa is allowed. No order asto eosts. 9. However, it is open to the respondent aufhorities to take recourse to Rule 65 offhe Chhattisgarh Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1976, ifso advised, in accordance with law, after followmg basic principles of natural justice. It is forther made clear that in the event before recovery of the alleged excess payment was made, a show cause aotice was issued and reply was filed by the petitioner to the same,1fae case ofthe petitioner may not be treated to be covered by the decision oftttisConitmV'dyadharTiwari^. \ cji -3 SatishK.Agnihotri Judge Annt