@é 0/6Wms / $m§§§c%> mamh IN THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BILASPUR LCG.) WRIT PEm'roN ( s ) No. $lé1 OF 2009 if ETITIONER: > Vashisfha Tiwari S/o. Late Shri Ramanuj Tiwari, aged abf 66 years, occupation — efir'ed Van Rakshk , r/o. Chakradharnugar Tahsi and Disf‘f: Roigar‘h ( CG.) l 1. The State of Chhaffgarh, S m Bu / is Through fhe ecre‘rary Fores‘r Deparfmem‘ Governent of Chhaf’risgar‘h, DKS lding Raipur (C.G.) 2. fhe Chief Conservcn‘or' of forest Raipur‘, Disff.— Raipur ( 6.6.) W, 3. ' The conSer‘vafor’ of foresf , Bilaspur Division Bilaspur' ( C. G.) (f/ Di Th h G g. 5. Joint Director, Account and pension Biiaspur, Division Biiaspur ( C. G. ) 4. tifhe visional Foresf Officer Raigar‘h, Forest Division Raigurh asil and District Raigar ( C.) WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 22b OF CONSTITUTION OF INDIA. P f ou R a VERSUS + Paiih‘oner Respondent The State of Chhattisgarh 3' athers WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDM \i\ Q\ HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH , WRIT PETEI'ION (S) NO. 3161 M2009 , Vashisma Tiwari Versus (SB : Hon’ble Mt. Sah'sh K. Agnihotri, J.) Present :— Shri Awadh Tripathi, Advacate for the petitioner. Shri P.K. Bhaduri, Pane! Lawyer far the State. ORD R R L (Passed 9115 Day ofApm,2011)) 1. With the consent of the parliee the matter is heard finally. 2. Chailenge in this petition is to the order 02.m.2008 (Annexute PH), - whereby a-vsum of Rs. 25,048/- has been directed to be recevered from the retiral dues of the petitioner holding it to be excess payment made to the petitioner, during the course of his service. 3. Shri Tripathi, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner retired from the post of Forest Guard on 30.06.2004. During the course of settlement of the retiral dues and tixation of pension, vide the impugned order, a sum of Rs. 25,048l- has been directed to be recovered holding it to be excess payment made to the petitioner during the course of his service. r4. vShri Tripathi further submits that the issue asto whether recovery of excess payment for no fault of the employee can be made without - ./ following the principles of naturai justice is no longer res inbgra, The same has been settled hy Hon‘ble Supreme Court in various decisions (See Syed Abdul Quadir and omers v. State of Biher and others’). This Court, relying on the above decisions has passed severai orders, directing refund of the amount, if any, recovered from the employees, where theemployees were not given any opportunity to expiain aboutthe excess payment, if any, made to them. Shri Tripathi lastly submits that any recovery from retiral dues can be made only in case if therev‘vas any misrepresentation or fraud on the part of the employee and the employee ‘ (2009) 3 SCC 475 *‘i 1EL V had knowiedge that the payment received was in excess, and the error was corrected within a short span of time of wrong payment. . Learned counsel appearing for the respondents does not dispute the above-stated submission made by learned counsel appearing for the petitioner. However, he submits that the similar order may be passed, subject to verification of facts. The Supreme Court as we" as this Court in a catena of decisions, time and again reiterates that no recovery of excess payment for no fault of the empioyee can be made without following the principles of natural justice. This Court in Ramchandra Kurup v. State of c.G. & Othersz and other connected matters, observed as under : “19. A common thread running 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 wron payment ...... ” . . In view of foregoing, this petition is allowed, suhiect to veritication of facts. The impugned order dated 02.09.2008 (Annexure — P/1) regarding recovery of Rs. 25,048/- from the retiral dues of the petitioneris hereby - quashed. The petitioner is entitled to full pensionary. benefits/gratuity : amount without any deduction, in accordance with law. lf the said amount is already deducted, the same shalt be payable to the petitioner vdth simple interest @ 6% per annum. No order asto costs. ,,,L\ z x Sd/_ ; Satish K. Agnihotri, Judge W a W.P.(S) NO. 3663 of 2009 r i