(1 c ^ /^^— Slng^ B^m^ IN THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR W. P. fS) No.^?-?0 of 2009 •^ ^.^-: PETITIONER ^ Beduram Sahu, S/o Shri Ramsahay Sahu, aged about 63 -_.<». years/ Retired Head Master, J-""^J*^ v Government Middle School, Boida .^^•^^^.^ ( Pali)/ Block-Pali, District-Korba •••^^'^^) (C.G.), R/o Hardi Bazar, District- Korba (C.G.). -^^* \. ^ RESPONDENTS VERSUS :1. State of Chhattisgarh Through : The Secretary Triable Department, D.K.S. Bhawan Raipur (C.G.) 2. Joint Director Treasury, Account & Pension, Raipur, Districf-Raipur 3.x District Education Officer, Korba, District- Korba (C.G.) ?'^ Block Education Officer, Pali, District-Korba CC.G.' ^--"" Principal, Government Middle School, Boida (Pali), Block-Pali, District-Korba (C.G.) WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA^ AF^ 'ltiQN;C^URT,©F€HHATT!S<3ARH:',BII-ASIPUR /^ 'PETITIQiSSER gESPGNDENTS WRtTPETITJ6N(S)N0.23200F:2009 Beduram^ahu .¥ersys; ';' •"::;: . :• ^ ^ 'State of:;Ghhattisgarh & GShers (Writ Petjtion :under Article 228 pf the Constjtution ,pf Indla) SJngle Bench ::.:Hon'bie'Shrl Sa'tish. K. Agnihotri, J., Present.:-' ^ Shri.;®.!-.Dejnbara, cautisei 'for the-petjtioiier. Shri Pankaj Shri¥astaya,(ParfeJ:lLawyerfor:the;St^ :ORDERfORALI •.I' " .:' ; ' •; (Passed' on;-thls 10tnl'clay of.-December, ;2G,09) ::1. • WJth the consent of ieamecl coynseS appearing for ttie parties, the petjtjon Is heard finai!y.:t i 2. - By this. petjtiorr, the; petitjorier; JinpyQns ;the order dated. 5-3-2009 (Annexyra- PM) icn. the grpynd that an. amoypt of Rs.37,374/- has teeen directed to .be recovered from the retlraS .' dues ofthe'petitloner. :• ;. . J' • j ^ 3. The jndjsputabje'facts, in^brief, areihat th.6 petitioner working as Head' Wlaster In .the Government SWiddle j Schooi, Boida (PalJ),. Block Pall, Dlstrlct^ Korba, retired from his 'service.' on •atlaiolng the age of syperanriyation cn 14-3-200S.! Thereater^ a notice. dated 22-9-2008 (Annexure'-P^) was Jssued to the petitioner to prodyceaiIthedocyiTientswithregardtopaym^^ for settienient of :pensionary ciyes.^ - Pyrsyant to; the said.: iiotice, the petjtioner su.bmltted his reply on 29-9-2808: (Annexure - P/3). However, all of s sudden without assigning any reason, the impugned order dated 5-3-2009 (Annexure - PM) was passed holding. that the excess payinent to; the • tiioe of Rs.37,374/- has been made to the petitioner and no retirsS dues could be released yniess the: petltioner deposits a sym of Rs^ Thys, ~this. petltion. - :. . .. ' ; • ' .': • ^, ,.: . . .' i 4. Learoed • coynse! .appearing^ yfor the petitloner l sybrri'jts that the issye asto whether^recovery pf excess paymeot for:^^n^ the employee; cao :be made:' wit^^ natyral justice 1s; no,longer\-f^; mfegra. settledbylhe SypremeCoyrtJnth€.\matterofSaA&;R@^ 3^ ofHa!yanaanao^ers,andfurtherfoJJowedbythlsCourtinthe matter of Vlcfyadftar Tiwari (Supra). In the Insfant case, the impugned order has :been passed wjthoyt affording any opportunity of hearing to tKe petltioner. 5. Learned counsei appearjngjfortheSlatedoes nct controvert the allegation that no opportunity of hearing was afforded before the impugned order was passecl, However, he Telies.on Ryie 85 of the: Chhattisgaits Civll Servjcesi(Pension)Rules,197S (for short 'the Rules, 1978?) for the purpose of recovery and adjustrsnent of Govemirsent dues. . i S. .The contentlon of the petitloner that even for exerclslng. power ynder Rule -65 of the' Ruies, .1976, basic priiiciples .of natyra! justlce and fair playln action are required So be followed. In the present case, the Stateteuthonties have not afforded any opportursity of hearing.to the petitloner to put forward his case asto why the dedyctlon from the, gratyi'ty. ainount.being excess amount cannot be made. The contentlon of the learned counsel for the petitloner nierlts acc.eptance. 7. This Court, in VidyadharTiwsri {supra), has held thatthe excess payment, IT any, made So the petitloner, he was not at fault and the amount received by hlm mlght have been used by adjusting himseSf accordingly treatlng the same as his saiary. At thls stage, directlng.recovery of thealleged excess amount from the peoslonary benefits^gratyity amoynt of'the petitioner wil! not be jystand proper. 8. In Syed Abdui Qadir & othsrs v. State'of Bihar & Others2, the Sypreme Coyrt observed that excess payment of emoSyriients^ ailowances cannot be recovered If the excess amoynt was not pald on account of any mis-representatjon or fraucl on the part OT the eniployee and if sych excess. payment was by the . employer.by appSylng a wrong. prindple for caiculatlng the pay/aiiowarsces or .on the basls of a particylar ititerpretation- of ruletorder, which is subsequentiy founcS to be errooeous. 9. It is not the case of the respondents that the excess payment has been made to the petltioner on account of any inls-representatlon or frayd cn the part of the petitloner« The 1-1995Supp(1)SCC20 2 (2009) 3 SCC 475 ;^.. ^T- Gowri excess paynient .rnight have beenmade.by wrorag calcyjatlon or wrong interpretation ofthe provisions ofjaw^if any. 10. The Sypreme .Coyrt* as:;| weli as this: Coyrt in a catena of decjslons, tlme and agam reiterates no recovery of excess payrrsent for no fault ':of| the. eiiiployee can: be wlthoyt 'folJowing the principles i of .naty-ral jystlce.^ .Thls Court in Ramchandra Kurup v.1 State -Gf'.C.G.1 & Others and other connected matters, observed as under : "19», A cbiiiirrion ttiread rynning jnto:-the above dedslons of the Supreme CourS is that, for recovery ;6f excess • payment Qf ; • emoJumerttsJallowaiices,', there are three conditions' whereirir the excess- paymenf may be irecovered, namely • (1) excess payment was made on account of .iTiisrepresersfation or fravd'011 .the part'of the einpioyee^ (ii) the j empioyee had knowledge that the/payment received was In exc€ss,:;aiid (lii) the error •wa.s corrected withln a short , span of ;tjme of wroiig ' • paynient....." - ..' : , 11. In vlew of foregoiiigy'this petition is alSowed^ The Inipygned- order 5-3-2009 (Annexyre ~. PM) regardipg recovery of Rs.37,3T4/- from the. retlraj dyes of the petitiorser Is'hereby qyashed. The. petitioner is • entltled to . fyll; pensioiiary beneflts^gratulty amounf, wlthout any; deduction. If the said amount is already dedycted,: the same sha!S be payabie to the . petitioner with siniple Interest @ S% per arsnym, No order asto costs. Sd/- Satish K. Agnihotri Judge 3->WP (S) N0.3663 of2009 decided on 23-1.1-2009