W v N THE HON’BLE HIGH COURT OF CH;HATTISGARH AT BILASPUR V \ L kWRIT PETITIOMS) No.SB&$ /201o PETITIONER i 1 \ /Smt. A‘ bika Soni Wife of Nandu {pal Soni aged abou ,74 t 62 yearls retired Hea Master, Govt. Girls Primar Schooll Sargaon, R/o Hakim Nagar Ajad War Sargaon Block Pathariya District Bilaspur (C.G.) VERSUS RESPONDfENTs: ~ / 1. State of Chhattisgarh Through Department of School -Education, Dau Kalyan Singh Bhawan, Raipur (C.G.) /2. The District Education Officer, District Bilaspur (C.G.) /3. The Block Education * Officer,Block—Pathariya, District Bilaspur (C.G.) / 4. The Joint Director, Accounts Treasury and Pension, Bilaspur (C.G.) WRIT UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA /93%- @ I ! d y d r \ \ x HIGH COURT OF CHHA'ITISGARH ATBILASPUR WRIT PETITION (S) No. 588 of2010 PETITIONER : Smt. Ambika Soni. RESPONbENTs .: State of enhaniégaLh VERsus & om‘ers. I z Present WRIT PETITION UNDER ARI‘ICLE 226 OF THE CONs FITUTION OF INDIA g SB Hon’hle Sim Saush K. Agmhotn, J. : I Shn K s Pawar, Advocate for the pentmher Shn Y S Thakur Deputy Advocate General for the State/respondents ORAL ORDER > ‘ (Passed on 085i day of February; 2010) With‘j the consent of learned counsel appealing for the parties, the matter is heard finally. By the present petition, the petitioner challenges the order dated 0531,2010 (Annexure P/1) whereby the petitioner was directed to deposit a sum of Rs. 32,08ll- in the Treasury, holding it to be excess payment made to the petitioner, during the course of her service. Shri ,Pawar‘, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner Submits that the petitioner, working as Head Mistress, retired ham service on attaining the age of suljerarmuation on 30.11.2009. The petitioner received a communication dated 05.01.2010 (Annexure P/l) issued by the'Block Education OEicer, Patharia, District Bilaspur, directing the petitioner to deposit a sum of Rs. 32,08.1/- in the Treasury, holding'it to be excess payment made to the‘petiti’oner, during the course of her service. - i 3. Shri Pawar thither submits that the issue asto whether recovery of _ ‘ excess’payment for no fault of the employee can be made without iollowmg the prmc1ples of natural Justlce 1s no longer res fntegra The ,samer has been settled by Hon’ble Supreme Court m vanous decislons { (See Syed Abdul Qadu and others v State ofBmar and others') Tins ”Court, relymg on the above dec1s10ns has passed several orders, ‘l’kdrrectmg refund of the amount, 1f any, Jovered hum the employees, giwhere the employees were not gven any opportumty to explam about the excess payment 1f any, made tIo them Shn Pawar further ' contends that any recovery nom retnal dues can be made only 1n case 1f there was any nnsrepresentatron or haud on the part of the employee and the employee had knowledge that the payment was received 1n , excess The error 1f any, could have been corrected Wtthm a short span x_ V' oftrme li‘om wrong payment Learned counsel appearmg for the respondents does not dispute the above submission madelby learned counsel appearing for’the petrtroner. However, he submits that the similar order may be passed, subject'to verificatiOn of facts. This Court, as well as Hon’ble Supreme Court in a catena ofdecisions, tune and agam retterated that no recovery ot excess payment for no fault . of the employee can be made w1thout followmg the prmcrples of natural ' justice. This Court in Ramchandra Kurt? v. Stare of CG. & others: ‘ and other connected matters, decided on 23rd November, 2009, observed i ‘ as under: “19 A common thread runmng into the above . decrsions of the Supreme Court rs that, for recovery of excess payment of emoluments/allowances there are three conditions wherem the excess payment may be recovered, namely (1) excess payment was made on (2009) 3 scc 475 , 2 w P (S) No 3663 of 2009 ; I j , i account ofnusrepresentatlon or aud on the part of the ; employee (11) the employee h d knowledge that the ‘ payment recewed was m exeess, and (111) the error was ‘¥ ccrrected, within a short span of time of wrong g payment .......... i . 1a In v1ew of the forgomg, the unpugned order dated 05 01 2010 (Annexure P/l) directmg recovery Rs 32 (981/- on account of excess payment made to the petmoner, 1s hereby huashed. 1f the amount has already been recovered, the petitioner is entitled to the said amount with v interest at the rate of6% per annum, subject to verification of facts. However liberty is reserved to the State/respondents that if the excess payment has been made on account of misrepresentation or hand on the part of the employee or the employee had the knowledge that the payment received by her was m excess, nesh orders may be issued on vermcation of the facts, after aEordmg opportumty of heanng to the petitioner. The writ petition is accordingly disposed of. ' o der asto costs. N or a l