c^'1-30^- syi RICftSPi SENl»! IN THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISHGARH AT BILASPUR (C.G.) W.P.(S) No. -2-3- 2010 Petitioner 1'=' ..•••;' ^^r- ^^ k ^"" ^\, o..-' ^\^ ;^. .^Tj' t:" Respondents Nirmal Das Sahu aged 65 years Son of Late Santosh Dash Sahu, Retd. Head Master, Govt. Primary School, Tolagaon, Tah. Dongargaon, R/o Diwan Bhedi, Distt. Rajnandgaon.(C.G.) Versus 1 2. State Government of Chhattishgarh, Through the Secretary, School Education Department, D.K.S.Bhavan, Raipur (C.G.) Divisional Joint Director, Kosh, Lekha and Pension, Raipur(CG) 3. DistrictTreasury Officer, Rajnandgaon. P')$'II- 6qjiM!i>\Ayi(»i(C-tr) "r^ Wnt Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for jssuance of writ^L Mandamus/direction or anv other aDDropriate writ. ^" ^r^ '^^ \^.::L--'S-' I^ 'y- HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH : BILASPUR PETITIONER WRIT PETITION (S) N0. 139 OF 2010 Nirmal Das Sahu Versus RESPONDENTS State Government of Chhattisgarh & others. (Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India) Single Bench : Hon'ble Shri Satish K. Agnihotri, J. Present:- Shri Somkant Verma, Advocate for the petitioner. Shri M.P.S. Bhatia, Deputy Government Advocate with Shri A.V. Sridhar, Panel Lawyer for the State. ORDER (ORAL) (Passed on this 29th day ofApril, 2010) 1. Challenge in this petition is to the order dated 26.05.2006 (Annexure P/1), whereby a sum of Rs. 35,478/- (Rupees Thirty Five Thousand, Four Hundred and Seventy Eight) towards excess payment made to the petitioner has been directed to be recovered from the retiral dues. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the issue asto whether recovery for excess payment, for no fault of the employee, can be made without following the principles of natural justice is no longer res integra. The issue has been settled by Hon'ble Supreme Court in various decisions (See Syed Abdul and others vs. State of Bihar and others ). 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, ifany, made to them. Learned counsel appearing for the respondents 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, asto whether the petitioner 3. 1 (2009) 3 SCC 475 has obtained the excess amount on misrepresentation or fraud on the part of the employee. This Court as well as Hon'ble Supreme Court ip 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 C.G. & others and other connected matters, decided on 23 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 a short span of time of wrong payment........." In view of the settled position 6f law on the point, the petition deserves to be and is allowed, Accordingly, the impugned order dated 26.05.2006 (Annexure P/1), directing recovery of Rs. 35,478/- on account of excess payment made to the petitioner, is hereby quashed. If the amount has already been recovered, the petitioner is entitled to the said amount with interest at the rate of 6% per annum, subject to verification of facts, about the fact that whether the petitioner has obtained the excess amount on misrepresentation or fraud on the part of the petitioner. No order astocosts. i-~~~Sd/-~~ — SATISH K. AGNIHOTRI Judge Arun