I •'ft! S ^= c^ l<=ns IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR W.^. (Sl No. OF 2011. PETITIONER ^^^.v-^^ :»-y^\? Parmanand Sahu, S/o. late Shri Jageshwar Sahu, aged about 69 years, Retired Assistant Teacher, R/o. Annapurnapara, Kanker, Tahsil and Disfrict Kanker (C.G.). (8'--"' toii.si--" VERSUS RESPONDENTS ^ : 1. State of Chhattisgarh, Through : The Secretary, Tribal Welfare Department, D.K.S. Bhawan, Raipur (C. G.) Divisional, Joint Director, Treasury, Accounts and Pension, Division Jagdalpur, District Bastar (C. G.) 3. Assistant Commissioner, Tribal Welfare Department, Kanker, District Kanker (C.G.) ^ ^ 4. Block Education Officer, Kanker, Block Kanker, District Kanker (C.G.) 5. Commissioner, Tribal Welfare Department, Pt. Ravishankar Shukl Premise, Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.) te WRIT PETITIQN UNDER ARTICLEJS26^)Z THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA ^ .!^'t HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WRIT PETfnON {S) No. 1172 of2011 pE'rmoN7ER : Parmanand Sahu. VERSUS RESPQNDENTS : State ofCfahattisgarh & Others. WmT PE'IITION UNDER AR'IICLE 226 OF THE CONSITrUTION OF INDIA SB: Hon'ble Shri Sattsh K. Ajiuhotn, J, Present: Shri Somkaiit Verma, Advocate tbr the petitioner. Shri Y.S.Thakur, Deputy Advocate General forthe State/ respondents. ORDERfORAL) 2. iTS (Passed on 03" day ofMarch, 2011) Challenge in this petition is to the order dated 29.01.2005 (Annexure P/l) whereby, a sum ofRs. 25,038/- has been directed to be recovered from the retrial dues ofthe petitioner, holding it to be excess payment made to the petitioner during the course ofhis service. Shri Verma, leamed counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner, while working as Assistant Teacher, retired from savice on 30.06.2004, on attaining the age of superannuation. According to Shri Venna, the impugned recovery has been made wifhout affording an opportunity ofhearmgto the petitioner, and fiirther, the issue asto whether recovery of excess paymeat can be made without following principles of natural justice is no longer res integra, tfae same has been settled by the Supreme Court in the matter ofSahib Ram v. State ofHaryana and others , aad fiirther followed by this Court in the matter of Vidyadhar Ti'wari v. The State of Chhattisgarh & Otkers and Vidya Shankar Tiwari v. State of'M.P. (Now State ofChhattisgarh) andotker/ andthereafter followed in several decisions. 11995 Supp (1) SCC 18 2 2006 (1) A'IPHT 105 (CG) 32006(2)^IPHT31(CG) 1ni ii ?a:S|Sa> i.1 ^ b. This Court m Ramchandra Kurup v. State ofC.G. & Others and other connected matters, observed as under: "19. A common thread nmning into the above decisions ofthe Supreme Court is that, for recovery of excess payment of emoluments/aUowances, there are three conditions wherein the excess payment may be recovered, namely (i) excess paynient was made on account ofmisrepresentation or fraud on the part of the employee, (ii) the employee liad knowledge thatlhe payment recewed was in excess, and (iii) the error was con'ected within a short span oftime ofwrong payment......" I-^amed counsel appearing fbr the State/respondents does not controvert the submissions made by leamed counsel for the petitioner and submits that fhis matter may be disposed of in the same terms. In view of fhe fbregoing and as admitted by leamed counsel appearing for the parties, this petition is disposed ofin the terms of the order passed in the case of Ramchandra Kurup . i.e. the impugned ocder dated 29.01.2005 (Annexure P/l) regarding recovery of amount of Rs. 25,038/- fi-om the retrial dues of the petitioner on account of excess payment, is hereby quashed. 'Fhe petitioner is entitled to fiill pensionary benefits/gratuity amount without anv deduction. If the amount has been reeovered. the petitioner is entitled to the said amount. However, it is open to the respondents to take recourse to Rule 65 of the Chhattisgarh Civil Sa-vices (Pension) Rules, 1976, tf so advised, in accordance v?ith law, after following basic principles of naturaljustice. Amst SatishK.AgB»hotn Judge 2010 (3) CGLJ 400 Bi'