'? 1 C F /^s^ .'!£•?!•>-..» '^Sf'^!fnsrs/T:si £c~) •-"itys^ yeyi^i '";i"S?*] IN THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BILASPUR (C.G.l W.P.(S)NO. /^T'?/2009 S. B. PETITIONER Jeevan Lal Banjare, S/o Heera Das, aged about 65 years, R/o Tilak ward Pipalpara, Lormi Marg Mungeli, Distt. Bilaspur (C.G.) VERSUS RESPONDENTS ^\"-" '^°.^ '.<^y ^ff^r ^v^y' A« 1. ' State of Chhattisgarh Through - Secretary, Town and Urban Department, D.K.S. Bhawan Raipur (C.G.) ^-""" 2. Deputy Director, Town, Urban and Development Department Raipur, Distt. Raipur ^MW^, ry'^--^^ '^/ ^l s.a. , R$^ /-' (C.G.) 3 ^Chi't^ M^lcfpol elj'^tC.w M^)t-lp°,l C»^cii M^^i WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA <">(<,)- g;l»,^^<:) )~ ffiiB n. HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH : BILASPUR Writ Petition f.S) No. 1977 of 2009 ;r Jeevan Lal Banjare Versus Respondents State of Chhattisgarh & ofhers WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA (SB: Hon'ble Shri Satish K. AgailiofriJ.) Shri Som.kant Vemia, Advocate for fh.e petitiouer. Shri N. N. Roy, Paael Lawyer for fhe respondents No. 1 aad 2. 2. (Passed on this 6th day ofJauuaiy, 2010) Heard. Challenge ia. this petition is to fhe order. dated 27.9.2008 (Aruiexure P/l), whereby a sum. of Rs. 1,49,671/- (Rupees One Lac, Fort}r-nine Thousand, Six Hundred and Seventy-onej towanls excess payinent inade to fhe petitioner has been directed to be recovered froin the ictiral dues of the petitioner. Leamed counsel.-'appearing for the petitioner subiaits fhs-t fhe petitioner was not given any opportunity to explain about fh.e paynient inade to fhe petitioner. Thus, fhis order is vitiated for want of coinpliance of fhe principles of natural justice and fair pla}'- in action. Learaed counsel further subniits that fhere is no fa.ult on the part of fhe petitioner aiid the ainount is paid to him ia accordaace witii the pay scales, revised aad fixed by fhe respondents from tiiue to tiiae. The respondents have not assigned any reason for recoveiy except fhat excess payinent was inade to the petitioaer, which is not sustainable, as there was no fault on the part of the petitioner. The respondents cannot recover the amount, already paid to the petitioner wifhout followiag tiie principles ofnaturaljustice. ^ 3. Leamed counsel appearfag for the respoudents submits that ifthe excess payment was made to the petitioner, the same caa be recovered at fhe time of setflement ofretiral dues. 4. The respondent-authorities have not foUowed the principles of natural jusdce and the impugned action has been taken xvithout affordiag au opportuziity of hearing to fhe petitioner. The practice of passing order involvuig civU consequences, without show cause notice orivithout affordiag an opportuiiily, is condeinned. 5. The issue asto whether recoveiy of excess pa^'m.ent for no fault of the eiuployee caa be m.ade wifhout foUowitig the pruiciples of natural justice is no longer res integra. The same has been settled by Hon'ble Suprenie Court iu. various decisions. In Syed Abdul Qadir aad others vs. State of Bihar and others1, Honlile Three Judges of the Supreine Court, haviag considered afl the aspects of fhe inatter and the decisions rendered by th.e Supreine Court ia the past, observed as under: "57. This Court, ia a catena of decisions, has graated reUef against recoverv' of excess payinent of em.oluments/allowaaces if (a) the excess amount was not paid on account of any niisrepresentation or fraud on the pai-t of fhe eniployee, and (b) if such excess payinent was inade by the einployer by applying a ^iTTong principle for calculating fhe pay/aUowaace or on the basis of a particular uiterprctation of nlle/order, which is subsequenfly found to be erroneous. 58. The reUef against recovery is grauted by courts not because of any right ia the eniployees, but in equity, exercisiui judicial discretion to relieve fhe einployees froia the hardship fhat wffi be caused if recovery is ordered. But, if in a given case, it is proved fhat the eniployee had knowledge that the payinent received was ia excess of what was due or wrongly paid, or tn. cases where the error is detected or corrected wifhin a short tiiue ofwrong payinent, fhe inatter beiag in fhe lealm. of judicial discretion, courts niay, ou the facts aad circuiastances of any particular case, order for recoveiy of fhe amoiint paid ta excess. See Sahib Ram v. State of Haryana, Shyaia Babu Venna v. Union of India, Union of India v. M. Bhaskar, V. Gangaiani v. Director, Col. B.J.Akkara (Retd.) v. Govt. of India, ' (2009) 3 SCC 475 6. Purshottaia Lal Das v. State of Bihar, Punjab National Baak v. Manjeet Siagh and Bfliar SEB v. Bijay Bhadur." In view offhe fol^omg, the petition is allowed. The impugned order dated 27.9.2008 (Annexure P/l), directing recoveiy of Rs. 1,49,671/-, on account of excess payment made to fhe petitioner, is hereby quashed. If the aDiount has already been recovered, fhe petitioner is entitied to fhe said atnount wifh iaterest at tlie rate of6% per anaum. No oider asto costs. Sd/- Satish K. Agnihotri Judge Tbakur