(^ ^ / ^ ^ IN THE HON'LBEL HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR ^ W.P.(S)No. KSO /2010 PETITIONER ..^^ -^^^ M^y r"" RESPONDENTS ^ EjaSiddh S/o Late Shri Alia Siddh aged about- 64 years, Retd. Assistant Teacher, Primary School, Barbaspur Block Rajnandgaon, District- Rajnandgaon (C.G.) Versus /1- State of Chhattisgarh, Through:- The Secretary, Education Department, D.K.S. Bhawan Raipur, Distt.- Raipur , 2. District Education Officer, Rajnandgaon, District- Rajnandgaon (C.G.) ^3. BlockEducation Officer, Rajnandgaon, District- Rajnandgaon (C.G.) ^4. Treasury Officer, Rajnandgaon, District Rajnandgaon (C.G.) WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA. 16 HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WRIT PETITION (S) No. 1580 of2010 PETITIONER Eja Siddh. VERSUS State ofChhattisgarh & Others. RESPONDENTS : WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA SB: Hon'ble Shri Satish K. Aenihotri, J. Present: Shri Anup Majumdar, Advocate for the petitioner. Shri P.K.Bhaduri, Panel Lawyer for the State/respondents. ORDER (ORAL) (Passed on 12th day of April, 2010) 1. Leamed counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that without affording any opportunity ofhearing, a sum ofRs. 32,998/- has been recovered from the retiral dues ofthe petitioner which is evident from the challan dated 07.03.2008 (Annexure P/2). Shri Majunidar further submits the issue asto whether recovery ofexcess payment for no fault ofthe employee can be made without following the principles of natural justice is no longer res integra. The same has been settled by Hon'ble Supreme Court in various decisions (See Syed Abdul Q^adir and others v. State of Eihar and others). This Court, relying on the above decisions has passed several orders, directing refund of the amount, if any, recovered from the employees, where the employees were not given any opportunity to explain about the excess payment, ifany, made to them. Shri Majumdar 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 inexcess. The error, ifany, could havebeen correctedwithin a shortspan oftime from wrong payment. (2009) 3 SCC 475 / ^ Shri Bhaduri, leamed Panel Lawyer appearing for the State/respondents submits that excess payment was not made on account of any misrepresentation or fraud committed by the petitioner. Admittedly, this was a case ofmisconstmction ofthe provisions ofwrong fixation ofsalary. He further submits that the similar order may be passed, subject to verification offacts. 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 ofC.G. & othersf2 and other connected matters, decided on 23 November, 2009, observed as under: "19. A common thread mnning into the above decisions of the 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 of misrepresentation or fraud on the part ofthe employee, (ii) the employee had knowledge that the payment received was in excess, and (iii) the error was corrected within a short span of time of wrong payment..........99 In view ofthe foregoing, the respondent authorities are directed to refund back the amount of Rs. 32,998/- to the petitioner. However, liberty is reserved to the State/respondents to verify the facts that ifthe excess payment has been made on account of misrepresentation or fraud on the part of the employee, or the employee had the knowledge that the payment received by his was in excess, fresh orders may be issued, after affording an opportunity ofhearing to the petitioner. The writ petition is accordingly disposed of. No order asto costs. W.P.(S)No. 3663 of2009 Sd/- SarishK.Agnihotn Judge