’i . Sing‘e 3e?“ BEFORE THE HON’BLE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR. A; ;L14” WRIT PETITION UNDER . ARTICLE 226/227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA FOR GRANT OF WRIT OF. MANDAMUS , CERTIORARY OR DIRECTION OF LIKE NATURE. tut C.L. Kaushik / Aged 62 years S/o. Shri Atma Ram Kaushik Retired as Assistant Grade-2, In the office of Executive Engineer Public Works Deptt., BILASPUR (CG) Petitioner VERSUS 1. State of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary Public Works Department . n g 7 D.K.S.Bhawan Raipur (C.G) i7 t f 2. Engineer In Chief I $1 Public Works Department Near Akashwani Raipur (c.g) . .............: “ug'K LE > ,, 3. Chief Engineering Public Works Department Near Akashwani Raipur (CG) Executive Engineer Public Works Department ., Champa Division Champa Executive Engineer Public Works Department Bilaspur Division No 1 Bilaspur (C.G.) Respondents. HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH : RHASPUR Writ Petition No. 194 of 005 C. L. Kauik Versus R6Spond€nts State of Chhattisgmh 8&0thers WRIT PETITIO UNDER ARTICLE 2261227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA Patifioner N (SB: Hon’ble Shli Satish K. Agnihotri J‘} Shu' N. Vyas, Advocam for 1116 petiu‘oner. K Shli M. P. S. Bhatia, Deputy Govt Advocata for Ills rsspondaants. (Passed on this 29th day of January, 2010) With ths consent of ths parties, the matter is heard fmally. 2. Chaileage in this petition is to the order dated 6.5.1999 {Annexure P/3), 16.4, 1999 (Annexure P/ 2) d the order] memo dated 9.3.2004 (Annexure P/ 1), whereby, according to the petitioner, the Treasury Officer, lasur was informed that a sum of R. 3,04,304/— (Rupees Three Lac, Four Thousand, Three Hundred and our), towards excess payment made to the petitioner has been recovered from the retiral dues, Learned counsel appihg for the petitioner submits that the issue asto whether recoery excess payent. for no fauit of the employe can be made without following the principles of natural jnstice is no longer res imegm. The same has been settled by Hon’ble Supreme Court in various decisions (See Sd Abdul Qadir d others vs. State of Biha: and othersl). This Court, relying on the above ecision has passed several orders, directing refun of the amount, if any, recovered from the employees, whee the employees were no given any opportunity to explain about the excess payment, if any, m e to them. Learned counsel further relies on a decision of this Court in W.P.No. 2892003 {H P. Gupta Vs. State of OJ 1 (2099) 3 Soc 475 C\.€‘ 2 sh 0 RD E Riarai) an Bip s F ear v of m e ye an ds d r» t a . 1/ Chattisgarh & others), which was allowa1 by order dated 22nd F€brua1y, 2006. Lgainsd counsel appean'ng for the respondents does not dispute the above submission made by leaned counsel appeaxing for the petitioneln However, he submits that the similar order may be passed, subject to verification of facts, asto wheiher the petitioner has obtained the excess amount 011 misrepresentatimi or misleading the fact. This Court as well as Hon’ble Supreme Court in a catena of decisions, Time and again reiterates that no recovery of excess paymerit for no fault of the employee can be made without following the principles of natural justice. This Court in Ramohandra Km‘up Vs. state of (LG. 65 others2 and other connected matters, decided on 23rd November, 2009, observed as under: (l 19. A common thread running into the above decisions of the Supreme Court is that, for recovery of excess payment of emolumentslallowances, there are diree conditions wherein the excess payment may be recovered, namely (i) excess payment was made on account of misrepresentation or fraud on me 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. .. m . » In View of the settled position of law on the point, the petition deserves to be and is allowed. Accordingly, it is directed that if the amount, if any, has already been recovered, on account of excess payment made to the petitioner, the same may he refunded to the petitioner with interest at the rate of 6% per annum, subject to verification of facts, asto Whether the. petitioner has obtained the excess amount on misrepresentation or misleading the fact. No order asto costs. sw— .Satish K. Agnihotri Judge Thakur 2 w.P.(S) No. 3663 of 2009 !“a q.