&^ la?^^— ^^ IN THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPURfC.G.) WRIT PETITION fS) No. :M^ U^ OF 2010 PETITIONER. ^ 1 ^.'•^>. '^'^^••"" ^y^^1'" >^^^ ^ ^^' Ramratan Janghel, aged about 65 Years, S/o Late Shri Sukhiram Janghel, R/o Gram and Post - Tendunala., Tah- Dongergaon, Distt.- Rajnandgaon (C.G.) VERSUS RESPONDENTS.................. 1. State of Chhattisgarh, through its Secretary, Department of School Education, Mantralaya, D.K.S. Bhavan, Raipur (C.G.) 2. Divisional Joint Director, Kosh, Lekha and pension, Raipur (C.G.) 3. District Treasury Officer, Rajnandgaon (C.G.) WRIT PETTION UNDER ARTICALE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OFINDIA HSGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WRST PETITION fSi N0.4944 OF 2010 ^- Petitioner Ramratan Janghel Versus Respondents , State of Chhattisgarh & Others WRiT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDiA (SB : Hon'ble Mr. Satish K. Agnihotri, J.) Present:- Shri Rakesh Thakur, Advocate for the petitioner. Shri N.N.Roy, Panet Lawyerforthe State. ORDERIORAU (Passed on 24th day of March, 2011) 1. Challenge in this petition is to the order dated 16.04.2007 (Annexure P/1) whereby, a sum of Rs. 38,796/- has been directed to be recovered from the retria! dues of the petitioner, holding it to be excess payment made to the petjtioner during the course of his service. 2. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner, whiie working as Head-master in the School Education Department, retjred from service on 31.03.2007, on attaining the age of superannuatjon. According to the petitioner, the impugned recovery has been made without affording an opportuntty of hearing to the petitioner, and further, the issue asto whether recovery of excess payment can be made without foliowing princjptes of naturai justice is no longer res integra, the same has been settiect by the Supreme Court in the matter of SahibRam v. Stateof Haryana andothers1, and further followed by this Court in the matter of Vidyadhar Tiwariv. The State of Chhattlsgarh & Others2 and Vidya Shankar Tiwariv. State of M.P. (Now State of ChhaWsgarh) and others3 and thereafter foilowed in several decisions. 3. This Court in Ramchandra Kurup v. State of C.G. & Others4 and other connected matters, observed as under: 11995Supp(1)SCC18 220Q6(1)MPHT105(CG) 3 2006 (2)MPMT 31 (CG) 42010(3")CGLJ400' "19. A common thread running into the above declsions of the Supreme Court is that, for recoveiy of excess payment of emoluments/affowances, 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 emp/oyee, (ii) the employee fiad 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. !n view of the foregoing and as admitted by learned counsel appearing for the partles, this petition is disposed of in the terms of the order passed in the case of Ramchandra Kuwp4. /.e. the irnpugned order dated 16.04.2007 (AnnexureP/1) regarding reeovery of an amount of Rs. 38,796/- from the retrial dues of the petitioner on account of excess payment, is hereby qyashed. The petitioneris entitled to full pensionary benefifs/gratuity amount without any deduction. If the amount has been recovered, the petitioner is entitled to the said amount. However, it is open to the respondents to take recourse to Rule 65 of the Chhattisgarh Civii Services (Pension) Rules, 1976, if so advised, In accordance with law, after following basic princjples of natural justice. ^ Sd/- SatishK. Agnihotri Judge fashok