IN WRIT PETITION (S) .No. 3E6 OF 2010 / ' PETITIONER '. SMT. GEETA SINHA, Aged — 55 Years, THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT — BILASPUR Widow of Madan Mohan Sinha, R/O Behind District Jail, Khajanchi Tola, Jashpur, District — Jashpur (C. (3:) l. VERSUS RESPONDENTS : L/STATE OF CHHATTISGARH, THROUGH — THE SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF FOREST, MANTRALAYA, D. K. S. BHAWAN, RAIPUR 2. x THE DIVISIONAL FOREST OFFICER, FOREST D‘IVISION, JASHPUR, ,CHHATTISGARH, 3. THE JOINT DIRECTOR, TREASUARY, ACCOUNT & PENSION, BILASPUR DIVISION, BILASPUR (C. G.) Writ Petition under Article — 226 of the Constitutibn of India. Particulgrs of the getitioner : ..M‘ TT". i HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH : BILASF’UR WRIT PETmON (S) NO.2715 OF 2010 PETITIONER Smt. Geeta Sinha Versus State of Chhattisgarh & Others (Writ Petition under Articb 226 of the constitution of India) Sing!e Bench : Hon‘ble Shri Satish K. Agnihotri. J, Present :- 8hri R.K. Kesharwani. Advocate for the petitioner. Shri N.N. Roy, Panel Lawyer for the State. RESPONDENTS ORDER ORAL (Passed on this 21 s day of February, 201 1) i 1. By the presentpetition, the petitioner challenges the order dated 26-8-2009 (Annexure P/Z) whereby a sum of Rs.84,661l- has been deducted from the retlral dues of the husband of the petitioner, (l. holding it to be excess payment made to the husband of the petitioner, during the course of his service: 2. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the husband of the petitioner, working as Forester died in harness on 08l05/2009. During the course of settiement of death cum retirement gratuity and pension etc., a sum of Rs.84,661l- was deducted hoiding it to be excess payment made to the husband of the pedhoner during the-course of his service. 3. Learned counsel further submits that the issue asto whether recovery of excess payment for no'f’ault of the employee can be made without following the principles of natural justice is no‘longer res integre. The same has been settled by Hon’ble Supreme Court in various decisions (See Syed Abdul Qadir and others v. State of Bihar and others'), This Court,>relying on the above decisions has passed. . several orders, directing refund of the amount, if any, recovered from the empioyees, wherethe employees were not given any opportunity to explain about the excess payment, if any, made to them. Learned counsel further contends that any recovery from retiral dues can be made only in case if there was any misrepresentation or fraud on the part of the employee and the employee had knowledge that the payment was received in excess. The error, if any, could have been corrected within a short span of time from wrong payment. / , 1 (2009) 3 SCC 475 LI 4. Learned counsel appearing for the respondents does not dispute the above submission made by learned counsel appearing for the petitioner. However, he submits that on the basis of consent given by the petitioner, the excess amount has been recovered. 5. The alleged consent was obtained by the respondent authorities after death of the deceased employee from his widow. Subsequent consent has no meaning, as it is the well settled law that the employee should have knowledge or he should be afforded an opportunity of hearing, but the same has not been done in the case on hand. 6. This Court, as well as Hon’ble Supreme Court, in a catena of decisions, time and again reiterated that no recovery of excess payment for no fault of the employee can be made without following the principles of natural justice. This Court in Ramchandra Kurup v. State of C.G. & others’ and other connected. matters, decided o 23'“ November, 2009, observed asunder: .“19. A common thread running into the above decisions of the Supreme Court is that, for 'recovery of excess payment of emoiumentsl allowances. there are three conditions wherein e the excess payment may be recovered, namely (i) excess payment was made on account of misrepresentation or fraud on the part of the employee, (ii) the empioyee had knowledge that the payment received was in excess. and (iii) the error was corrected within a short span of time of wrong payment.......... " 7. ln View of the forgoing, the impugned order dated 26-8-2009 (Annexure PIZ) directing recovery of Rs.84,661l~ on account of excess payment made to the husband of the petitioner, is hereby quashed. If the amount has already been recovered, the petitioner is entitled to the said amount with interest at the rate of 6% per annum, subject to verification of facts. The writ petition is accordingly disposed of. 9. No order asto costs. Sd/— SATISH K. AGNIHOTRI Judge 2 w.P.(S) Nu. 3663 of 2009 n