f ,S!-^C^ !iBtE SSS-i c^ IN THE HON'LBEL HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR W.P.(S)No. fif6 /2010 PETITIONER RESPONDENTS ^1 ^^y^ ^•^vy"" ..- (%^ o...-- / / »tx"~' Domansingh Chandrakar S/o Shri Ck'tt^ 'S^^- CJ^^-va^ aged about- 63 years, Retd. Head Master, Block Rajnandgaon, District- Rajnandgaon (C.G.) Versus State of Chhattisgarh, Through:- The Secretary, Education Department, D.K.S. Bhawan Raipur, Distt.- Raipur District Education Officer, Rajnandgaon, District- Rajnandgaon (C.G.) Block Education Officer, Rajnandgaon, District- Rajnandgaon (C.G.) Treasury Officer, Rajnandgaon District- Rajnandgaon (C.G.) WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA. _Th<a aJ^^^/ct "-^"^"'"' H'-'+S+i-"-"—^— HIGH COURTOFCHHATnSGARH : BILASPUR PETITIONER WRIT PETITION (S) N0.146 OF 2010 Domansingh Chandrakar Versus RESPQNDENTS State of Chhattisgarh & others. (Writ Petition under Article 226 ofthe Constitution of India) Single Bench : Hon'bte Shri Satish K. Agnihotri, J. Present:- Shri Anoop Majumdar, Advoeate for the petitioner. <»<•• M.P.S. Bhatia, Deputy Govemment Advocate with Shri A.V. Sridhar, Panel Lawyer forthe State. QRDER (ORAL) ' (Passed on this 29th day of April, 2010) Challenge in this petitlon is to the order dated 19.06.2008 (Annexure P/2), whereby a sum of Rs. 49,320/- (Rupees Forty Nine Thousand, Three Hundred and Twenty) towards excess payment made to the petitioner has been dlrected to recovered from the retiral dues. Leamed counset appearing for the petitioner submits that the Issue asto whether, recovery for excess payment for no fault of the employee can be made without following the principtes of natural justice is nolonger res integra. The issue has been settled by Hon'ble Supreme Court in various deoisions (See Syed Abduland others vs. State of Bihar and others ). This Court, relying on the above decisions has passed several orcters, directing refund ofthe amount, if any, recovered from the employees, where the employees were not given any opportunity to explain about the excess payment, if any, made to them. 1.8arned counsel appearing for the respondents .does not dispute the above submission made by leamed eounset appearing for the petitioner. However, he submits that the similar order may be passed, subject to verification of Tacts, a^o whether the petitioner 1 (200'9) 3 SCC 475 s<$T%« !l^^yf''-'W!~^ ^i ^s'^*i\ S i 'v—a%i 't ^JJ 2 vl<?' ^^. ~;i. • Arun has obtained the excess amount on misrepresentation or fraud on the part of the emptoyee. This Court as well as Hon'ble Supreme Court in a catena of decisions, time and again reiterates that no recovery of excess payment for no fault of the employee can be made without following the principtes of natural justice. This Court in Ramchandra Kunip Vs. State of C.G. & others2 and other connected matters, decided on 23 November, 2009, observed as under: "19. A common thread running into the above decisions 6f the Supreme Court is that, for recovery of excess payment of emoluments/allowances, there are three conditions wherein the excess payment may be recovered, name!y (i) excess payment was made on account of misrepresenfation 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 of time of wrong payment........." In view of the settted position of law on the point, the petition deservestobe and isallowed, Accordingty, the impugned order dated 19.06.2008 (Annexure P/2), directing rerovery of Rs. 4Q,320/- on account of exce^ payment made to the petitioner, is hereby quashed. If the amounthas already been recovered, the petitipner is entitled to the said amount with interest at the rate of 6% per annum, subject to verification of facts, asto whether the petitioner hasobtained the excess amount on misrepresenfation or fraud on the part ofthe petitioner. No order asto coste^ Sd/- SATISH K. AGNIHOTM Judge W.P.(S) No. 3663 of 2009