C^( INTHEHON'BLE HIGHCOURT OFCHHATnSGARHATBILASPUR WRIT PETITIQN :CS1JMQ^fe^0 OF 2010 PETmON£R RESPONDENTS ^^y. yc:^^ ''~'^'^w /€<^^' ^.--^^y :<^''^... ^y^ "y 'Radheshyam Dadsena, S/o Manohar Lal Dadsena, aged about 62 years, R/o Village Sukli, Post Bareli, District Raipur (C.G.) VERSUS State 6f Chhattisgarh: Through: the Secretary, Department of Forest, D.K.S. Bhawan, Raipyr (C.G.) 2. CKief Conservator of Forest (General Administratjon) Aranya Bhawan, Jail Road, Raipur (C.G.) 3. The Divisional Forest Officer (East), Raipur Divtsion, Raipur (C.G.) 4.^ Thejoint Director, Treasury Accounts and Pension, RaJpur(C.<3.) •^ •. ' . • ! ';: : : ' • 5. The Accountant General Chhattisgarh,Raipur (C^G.) WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSfITUTION OF INDIA I. PARTICULARSOFTHEPETmONER As given th the cause title. 2. PARTIGULARS OF THE RESPONDENTS A§given in the cause title. i:;a PETiTIONER HIGH CQURT OF CHHATTISGARH : BiLASPUR WR1T PETIT!ON (S) N0. 6640 OF 2010. Radheshyam Dadsena Versus RESPONDENTS State of Chhattisgarh & Othere ^. (Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution ot' India) Single Bench : Hori'ble Shri Satish K. Agnihotri, J. Present:- Shri P.P.Sahu, Advocate for ths petltioner. Shri N.N.Roy, Panel Lawyer for the State/respondents No.1 to 4. Shri R. Pradhan, Advocate for the respondent No.5. ORDER (ORAL) (Passed on this 19th day ofApril, 2011) 1. Chailenge in this petition is to the order dated 13.09.2010 (Annexure P/1) whereby, a sum of Rs. 57.194/- 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 sen/ice. 2. Learned counse! appearing for the petitioner gubmits that the petltioner, whiie working as Forester, retired from service on 31.05.2008, on attaining the age of superannuation. According to the petitioner, the impugned recovery has bsen made without affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, and further, the issue asto whether recovery of excess payment can be made without foliowing principtes of natural justice is no longer res mtegra, the same has been settied by the Supreme Court in the matter of Sahlb Ram v. State of Haryana and others, and further followed by this Court in the matter of Vidyad'nar Tmari v. The State of Chhattisgafh & Others^ ahd .Vidya Shankar Tiwari v. State of M.P. (Ncw Sfate of Chhattjsgarh) arxi others1 and thereafter followed in several decisions. 3. Thte Court in Ramchandra Kurup v. Stvite of C.G. & Others* and other connected matters, observed as under : "19. A commori fcread runnjng jnto above declssons of the Supreme Court 'ss ihat, for recovery of excess .payment of emoiuments/altowances, ffiiere are three condiSons wherein the excess payment may '1995Supp(1.)SCC18: 22006(1)MPHT105(CG) 3 200S (2)MPhT 31 (CGj 4201D(3)CGLJ400' WR ashok 4. 2 be reeoyered, namely (i) excsss payment was made on accotint of misiBpresentatson or fraud on ffie partof the emptoyee, (ii) the empfoyee had kncwledge that se payment received was in ex6es3, and (m) the error was corrected wittiin a short span of time of wmng payment......" Learnad counsei 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. ~ In view of foregoing and as admitted by learned counsei appearing for the parties, this petltion is disposed of in the terms of the order passed in the case of Ramchandra Kurup . i.e. the impugned order dated 13.09.2010 (Annexure P/1) regarding recovery of an amount of Rs. 57,194/- frorn the retria! dues of the petitioner on account of excess payment, is hereby 6. However, 't is ppen to the respondenls to take recourse to fte prov'isions of the Chhattisgarh Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1976, ifso advised, in accordancewith !aw, after foilpwing basic principles pf natural justice.