S’WRE Mfxaa‘aw BEFORE THE HON’BLE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR C.G. W.P.(S) NO. 76?3; QFWLMo / PETTIONER 1. Bedu ram kannoje, S/o late Shri Sedhalu Ram kannoje, Aged about 67 years, R/o Rtd Upper Division Teacher Harethi' Road Sakti Distric — Janjgir (Champa) Education Department, D.K.S. Bhawan Raipur (C.G.) M. 2. DivisionalrJoint Director Treasury and Pension Bilaspur (C.‘G.) WRIT PETITON UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONTITUTION OF INDIA FOR ISSUANCE OF WRIT OR MANDAMUSZDIRECTION OF OTHER APPROPRIATE WRIT. V (C.G.) VERSUS RESPONDENTS L/ State of Chhattisgarh Through — The Secretary, HIGH COURT OF CHHATT1SGARH 1 BKLASPUR WRIT PET§TION (S) NO. 7573 OF 2910 PETmONER Bedu Ram Kannoje Versu5 State of Chhattisgarh 8: Another {Writ Pet§iion under Articie 226 of the Constituiion of hack) Singb Bench : Hen’bée 3m Satish K. Agnihoiri, J. Present :‘~ $hri Agay Shrivastava, Ad‘iocate far The petiiioner. Shri N.N.Roy, Panel Lawyer Tm the State. RESPONDENTS ORDER (ORAL) (Passed on this 6‘“ day of Apm, 2G1 1) 1. Chaiienge in this petition is to the order dated 23.09.2006 (Annexure P/2) whereby, a sum of Rs. 21‘100f— has been directed to be recovered from the reirie! dues of the petitioner, hotding it to be excess payment made to the petitioner during the coulvse of his SeNlCe. 2‘ Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner, white working as Upper Divtston Teacher, retired from service on 28.02.2005; 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 toiiowing principies of naturai iustice is no ionger res integra, the same has been settled by the Supreme Court in the matter of Sahib Ram v. Sz‘afe of Haryana and others7, and further foiiowed by this Co% inj'th’e‘rhatter of Vidyadhar Tiwari’ v. The $tate of Chhattisgarh & Othersz and Vidya Shankar Tiwari v. State of “MP. (Now State of Chhattisgarh) and others3 and thereafter foiiowad in severai decisions. 3. This Court in Ramchatidra Kurup v. State of CG. <3 Others" and other oonneoteo‘ matters, observed as under : w i r’ i rose Supp r1) soc 18 2 2005 (1) MPHT 1.05 (CG) t 2006 (2) iviPi—rr 31 (CG) 4 2010 (3) ceLJ 400 \,’\t L3 “1Q. A common thread running into the abcve decisians af the Supreme Court is mat, for recovery of excess payment 0f emoiumenis/allowances, there are fhree conditions wherein z‘he excess payment may be recovered namely (1) excess payment was made on account of misrepresenfafion or fraud on the par? of fhe employee, (if) the empioyee had knowledge thef the payment received was in excess, and (iii) the error was conected within a short span of iime of wrong payment...... " Learned counsei appearing for, the State/respondents does not controvert the submissions made by ieamed counsel for the petitioner and submits that this matter may be disposed of in the same tetms. in 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 23.09.2006 (Annexure P/2) regarding recovery of an amount of Rs. 21,100i- from the retriai dues of the petitioner on account of excess payment, is hereby quashed. However, it is open to the respondents to take recourse to the provisions oi the Chhattisgarh Civil Services (Pension) Ruies, 1976, it so advised, in accordance with iaw, after foliowing basic principles of nature! justice. Sd/— ’ i Satish K. Agnihotri'i‘ Judge ' , l