“mam mm ‘ y BEFORE HON’BLE HIGH COURT 'o’F CHHATTISGARH'AT ' BILASPUR - w. P. (S) No. 4&5 /2009 ,ttw« .M‘It WRIT PETITION UNDE/R ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTIé OF INDIA. It wt PETITIONER ( Kamla Baghel W/o— Late Shri Nihai Sgingh Baghel, Aged about 64‘ years, R/o.- Sahdev Nagar, bi‘s‘jt‘rict— Rajnandgaon (C.G.) ‘ VERSUS RESPONDENTS / 1) State of Chha'ttisgarh, THrou’gh I Secretary, school EdjucatiOn Department, D.K.S. Bhawan, Raipur(C.G.) / 2) ‘ District Education bffieer, Rajnandgaon, Colle§terate, District- Rajnandgaon (Cite) /,3) Divisional Joint Djirector, Directorate of Treasury, Accounts and Penaion Department, Raipur (co; I ; HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WRIT PETITION (S) N0. 4955 of 2009 WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA SB: Hon’ble Shri Satish K. Agnihotri, J. Present: Shri Anup Majumdar, Advocate for the petitioner. Shri A.V.Shridhar, Panel Lawyer for the State/respondents. ORDER ORAL (Passed on 14” day of March, 201 1) Challenge in this petition is to the order dated 09.08.2007 (Annexure P/4) whereby, a sum of Rs. 31,337/— 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 SCI'VIC6. 2. Shri Majumdar, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner, while working as Assistant Teacher, retired from service on 31.08.2007, on attaining the age of superannuation. According to ' Shri Majumdar, 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 ofHaryana and athersl, and further followed by this Court in the matter of Vidyaa’har Tiwarz' v. The State of Chhaltisgarh & Othersz and Vidya Shankar Tiwari v. State ofMP. Wow State of Chhaztz'sgarh) and others] and thereafter followed in several decisions. 3. The State/respondent, in its return, has neither pleaded nor established that a show—causelnotice or any opportunity of hearing 1 1995 Supp (1) scc 18 2 2006 (1) MPHT 105 (CG) 3 2006 (2) MPHT 31 (CG) PETITIONER Kamla Baghel. VERSUS RESPONDENTS State of Chhattisgarh & Others. ,> was afforded to the petitioner, before passing the impugned recovery order. This Court in Ramchandra Kurup v. State of CG. & 0thers4 and other connected matters, observed as under: “19. A common thread mnning 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 made on account of misrepresentation or fraud on the 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 ...... " 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. In View of the 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 Kurup4. z'.e. the impugned order dated 09.08.2007 (Annexure P/4) regarding recovery of amount of Rs. 31,337/— from the retrial dues of the petitioner on account of excess payment, is hereby quashed. The petitioner is entitled to full pensionary benefits/gratuity amount without any deduction. If the amount has been recovered, the. petitioner is entitled to the said amount. However, it is open to the respondents to take recourse to Rule 65 of the Chhatfisgarh Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1976, if so advised, in accordance with law, after following basic principlesof natural justice. Satish K. Agnihotri Judge Sd/— Amit 4 2010 (3) CGLJ 400