3§§é£LE 3E3€§§§ \IN THE HON’BLE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR SB WRIT I’E'l‘l'l‘ION (S) ,Nog’oq‘ /20l¢ PETITIONER /" Mohammad Shamsul Hoda, aged about—68 years, 3/0 Shri Late Shri. Md. Noorul Hodm Retired Assn. Teacher, R/o Post— Keradih, Tahsi—, Kunkuri, District~Jashpur (C G) VERSUS RESPONDENT ,1. The Slate of Chhaffisgarh through- The Secretary, Schedule Caste, Schedule Tribe and Backward Class Welfare‘Department‘ Mantralaya DKS Bhawan. District— Raipur (CG) The Commissioner Scheduled Tribe and Schedule Caste Development- Chhattisgarh, District— Raipur (C G). 3. The Asstant Commissioner, Tribal Development. District-Jashpur (C.G.) 4 The Joint Director Funds Accounts and Pension Department, Distriet— Ambikapur (CG) WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA FOR ISSUANCE OF WRIT OF MANDAMUS OR ANY OTHER WRIT ORDER OR DIRECTION AS DEEMED FIT ., : @ HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WRIT PETITION (S) No. 607 of2011 WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA SB: Hon’ble Shrl Satish K. Agnihotri, J. Present: Shri Azad Siddique, Advocate for the petitioner. * Shri N.N.Roy, Panel Lawyer for the State/respondents. ' ORDER ORAL (Passed on 23' day of February, 201 1) The petitioner, While working as Assistant Teacher, retired ti‘om service on 01.08.2008 on attaining the age ofsuperannuation. The petitioner is aggrieved by the order dated 30.01.2008, whereunder a sum of Rs. 31,808/- has been directed to be deducted from the pensionary benefits, holding it to be excess payment made to the petitioner during the course ofhis service. 2. According to the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, the impugied recovery has been made without aEording 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 ofHaryana and others], and Iiirther followed by this r Court in the matter of Vz‘dyadhar Tiwari v. The State of Chham‘sgarh &. Othersz and Vidya Shankar Tiwari v. State ofMP. Wow State ofChhattisgarh) and others} and thereaner followed in several decisions. 1 1995 Supp (1) scc 18 z 2006 (1) MPHT 105 (CG) 3 2005 (2) MFHT 31 (CG) PETITIONER : Mohammad Shamsul Hoda. VERSUS RESPONDENTS : The State ofChhattisgarh & Others. 3. This Court in Ramchandra Kurup v. State ofC.G. & Others" and other connected mattem, observed as under : “19. A common thread running into the above decisions ofthe 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 ofmisrepresentation 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 oftime ofwrong payment...... ” Leamed 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. 1n view of the foregoing and as admitted by leamed counsel appearing for the parties, this petition is disposed ofin the terms of the order passed in the case of Ramchandra Kump". i.e. the impugned order dated 30.01.2008 (Annexure P/l) regarding recovery of amount of Rs. 31,808/- from the retrial dues of the ' petitioner on account of excess payment, is hereby quashed. The petitioner is entitled to till! pensionary benefits/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 Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1976, if so advised, in accordance with law, atter following basic principles of natural justice. Sd/-' Satish K. Agnihotri Judge -—~ 4 2010 (3) CGLJ 40'0