KWH^ P SKUS^U^a. ^isavLE s:cnifn^w> BEFORE THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR fC.G.l W.P. fSI N0. \^\ of2011 PETITIONER Chakradhar Yadav, S/o, Jogiram Yadav, aged about 61 years, Retired Forester, Raigarh Range, District Raigarh (C.G.) RESPONDENTS '\.. ^ ^ >^'<y v^>" ?^>'' VERSUS 1: •^ State of Chhattisgarh, Through : The Secretary, Department of Forest, D.K.S. Bhawan, Raipur (C.G.) ^ 2. Divisional Forest Officer, Raigarh, Division Raigarh (C.G.) .../^"w' •ff'\J /' ^' 3. Senior Accounts Officer, Office of the Accountant General Chhattisgarh, Pandri Raipur (C.G.) WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OFINDIA 1. PARTICULARS OF THE PETITIONER As mentioned in the cause title. 2. PARTICULARS OF THE RESPONDENTS As meritioned in the cause title. ^' (^ HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR PETmONER WMTPET1TION (S) No. 1101 of2011 Chakradhar Yadav. ;R£SPONDENTS VER8US State ofChhattisgarh & Others. WRIT PETmON UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA SB: Hon'Ue Stm Satish K. Aenihotn, J. Present: Shri Pankaj Shrivastava, Advocate for the petitioner. Sliri Y.S.Thafcur, Deputy Advocate General for fhe State. Shri R.Pradhan, Advocate for the respondent No. 3. ORDERfORAL) (Passed on 25th day of Fsbmary, 2011) 1. The petitioner, while working as Forester, retired froin service on 31.12.2010 on attaining the age of superamiuation. The petitipner is aggrieved by fhe order dated 31.12.2010 (Amiexure P/l), whereunder a sum of Rs. 1,06,136/- has been directed to be deducted from the pensionary benefits, holding it to be excess payment made to the petitioner during the course ofhis serviee. 2. According to the leamed counsel appearing for the petitioner, Ihe impugned recovery has been made without afibrding an opportumty ofhearing to the petitioner, and further, the issue asto whether recovery of excess payment ean be made without followmg principles of natural justice is no longer res integra, tfae same has been settled bythe Supreme Coiut inthe matter otSahib Ram v. State ofHaryana and others^, and farther followed by fhis Court m the matter of Vidyadhar Tiwari v. The State of Chhattisgarh <& Others^ and Vidya Shankar Tiwari v. State ofM.P. (No-w State ofChhattisgarh) and other/ and thereafter followed in several decisions. I1995Supp(l)SCC18 2 2006 (1) MPHT 105 (CG) 32006(2)MPHT3l(CG) &'a<%*L.i v*~fy^ -r-i<-' This Court in Ramchandra Kurup v. State qfC.G. & Others and other connected matters, observed as under: "19. A coimnon thread runmng into the above decisions oftlie Supreme Court is that, for recovery of excess payinent of emoluments/allowances, there are three conditions wherein the excess payment may be recovered, namely (i) excess paynieat was made on accouiit ofmisTepresentation or fraud on tlie part of the employee, (ii) the employee had knowiedge that the payinent received was in excess, and (iii) the error was corrected witfaui a short span oftime ofwrong payment;....." Leamed counsel appearing fbr the State/respondents does not controvert the subnussions made by leamed counsel tor the petitioner and submits that this matter may be disposed of in the same temis. In view of the tbregoing and as admitted by leamed eounsel appearing for the parties, this petition is disposed ofinthe terms of the order passed in the ease of Ramchandra Kurup . i.e. the impugned order dated 31.12.2010 (Annexure P/l) regarding recovery ofamount ofRs. 1,06,136/- from the retrial dues ofthe petitioney on account of excess payment, is hereby quashed. The petitioner is entitled to full pensionary benefits/gratuity amount without anv deduction. If the amount has been recovered. the petitioner is entided to the said amount. However, it is open to the respondents to take recourse to Rule 65 of the Chhattisgarh CivU Sen'ices (Pension) Rules, 1976, if so advised, in accordance with law, after following basic prmciples of natural justice. Aimt Sd/- Satish K. Agnihotri Judge