^ ^9- 1 ^ 5 IN THE HON'LBEL HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AJ BILASPUR W.P.(S)No. ^^/9 /2010 PETITIONER ^f ^ : L^M^4'^^ ?^r<s^v<>^" ^^^I^^- ^- RESPONDENTS Medhuram Verma S/o Late Shri °^Verma aged about- 64 years, Retd. hlead Master, Block - Rajnandgaon, District- Rajnandgaon (C.G.) Versus State of Chhattisgarh, Through:- The Secretary, Education Department, D.K.S. Bhawan Raipur, Distt.- Raipyr District Education Officer, Rajnandgaon, District- Rajnandgaon (C.G.) Block Education Officer, Rajnandgaon, District- Rajnandgaon (C.G.) 4 Deputy Director, Treasury, Accounts and Pension Department, Raipur Division District- Raipur(C.G.) ^' WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE_CQNSTiTUT!ON OF INDIA. ^i .•i ;!• w HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH : BILASPUR WRIT PETITION (S) N0.4949 OF 2010 PETITIONER Medhuram Verma RESPONDENTS Versus State of Chhattisgarh & Others (Writ Petition underArticle 226 ofthe Constitution of India) Single Bench : Hon'ble Shri Satish K. Agnihotri, J. . Present:- Shri Anup Mazumdar, Advocate for the petitioner. Shri N.N. Roy, Panel Lawyerforthe State. ORDER (ORAL) (Passed on this 9th day of February, 2011) 1. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. The petitioner, while working as Head Master, retired from service on 31.7.2008 on attaining the age of superannuation. The petitioner is aggrieved by the order dated 22.7.2008, whereunder a sum of ? 32,253/- has been directed to be deducted from the pensionary benefits, holding it to be excess payment made to the petitioner during the course of his service. 3. According to the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, the impugned recovery has been made without affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, and further, the issue asto whether recovery of excess payment can be made without following principles of natural justice is no longer res integra, the same has been settled by the Supreme Court in the matter of Sahib Ram v. State of Haryana and others1, and further followed by this Court in the matter of Vidyadhar Tiwari v. The State of Chhattisgarh & Others and Vidya Shankar Tiwari v. State of M.P. (Now State of Chhattisgarh) and others3 and thereafter followed in several decisions. 4. This Court in Ramchandra Kurup v. State of C.G. & OthersA and other connected matters, 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 1 1995 Supp (1) SCC 18 2 2006(1)MPMT105 (CG) 3 2006 (2) MPHT 31 (CG) 42010(3)CGLJ400 n F^ 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......" Learned counsel appearing for the State/respondents does not controvert the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioner and submits that this matter may be disposed of in the same terms. In view of the foregoing and as admitted by learned counsel appearing for the parties, this petition is disposed of in the terms of the order passed in the case of Ramchandra Kurup . /.e. the impugned order dated 22.7.2008 (Annexure P/5) regarding recovery of amount of ? 32,253/- from the retrial dues of the petitioner on account of excess payment, is hereby quashed. The petitioner is entitled to full pensionary benefits/gratuity amount without any deduction. Ifthe amount has been recovered, the petitioner is entitled to the said amount with interest at the rate of 6% per annum. However, it is open to the respondents to take recourse to Rule 65 of the Chhattisgarh Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1976, if so advised, in accordance with law, after following basic principles of natural justice. It is further made clear that in the event before recovery of the alleged excess payment was made, a show cause notice was issued and reply was filed by the petitioner to the same, the case of the petitioner may not be treated to be covered by the decision of this Court in Ramchandra Kurup4. %-€' Sd/- Satish K. Agnihotri Judge