(é) % w?” @ 0 $ingie Berm 1N THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR w.P.(S)No. W$$ 0F2011. / PETITIONER : Chhote Lal Surojiya, S/o. late Shri Dildar Singh Surojiya, aged about 66 years, Retired Head Master, R/ o. Donkawahi (Pattharri Para), Block Charama, District Kanker (C.G.). VERSUS RESS PONDENT :1. State of Chhattisgarh, Through : The Secretary, Tribal Welfare Department, D‘.K.S. Bhawan, Raipur (C. G.) 2. Divisional, Joint Director, Treasury, Accounts and Pension, Division Jagdalpur, District Bastar (C. G.) 3. [Block Education Officer, Charama, Block Charama, District Kanker (C.G.) WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA l h (Writ Petition under Articie 226 of the Constitution of tndia) Single Bench : Hon‘ble Shri Satish K. Agnihotri, J. Present :- Shri Somkant Verma, Advocate for the petitioner. Shri Sushi! Dubey, Govt. Advocate for the State. ORDER ORAL (Passed on this 8‘ day of April, 201 1) 1. Chaiienge in this petition is to the order dated 07.06.2007 (Annexure P/1) whereby, a sum of Rs. 31 ,229I— has been directed .to be recovered from the retrial dues of the petitioner, holding it to be excess payment made to the petitioner during the course of his service. 2. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner, while working as Headmaster, retired from service on 31.03.2007, on attaining the age of superannuation. According to the petitioner. the impugned recovery has been made without affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, and further. the issue asto whether recovery of excess payment can be made without following principles of natural justice is no longer res integra, the same has been settled by the Supreme Court in the matter of Sahib Ram v. State of Han/ans and others’, and further foliowed by this Court in the matter of Vidyadhar Tiwan‘ v. The State of Chhattisgarh & Othersz and Vidya Shankar Tiwari v, State of MP. (Now State of Chhattisgarh) and othersa and thereafter followed in several decisions. 3. This Court in Ramchandra Kurup v. State of C.G. & Others" and other connected matters, observed as under : “19. A common thread running 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 1 1995 Supp (1) soc 18 2 2006 (1) MPHT 105 (CG) 3 200$ (2) MPHT 31 (CG) 4 2010 (3) ceLJ 400 ® PETITIONER Chhote Lai Surojiya Versus RESPONDENTS State of Chhattisgarh & Others a L. a made on account of misrepresentation ar fraud &\ on fhe part of the employee, (it) the employee had know/edge that the payment received was in excess and (iii) the error was corrected within a ’ short span of time of wrong payment...... ” Learned counsel appearing for the State/respondents does not controvert the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioner and submits that this matter may be disposed of in the same terms. ln View of foregoing and as admitted by learned counsel appearing for the parties, this petition is disposed of in the terms of the order passed in the case of Ramchandra Kurup". i.e. the impugned order dated 07.06.2007 (Annexure P/1) regarding recoveryvof an amount of Rs. 31,229/- from the retrial dues of the petitioner on account of excess payment, is hereby quashed. s However, it is open to the respondents to take recourse to the provisions of the Chhattisgarh Civii Services (Pension) Rules, 1976, if so advised, in accordance with law, after following basic principles of natural justice. puma...” Sd/-' ashok Satish K. Agnihotri Judge