^ \^i s / EN THE fflGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR LSJ W.P. ^YNO). ~^^ / 2010 PETITIONER RESPONDENTS ^?,.-' ^^••- ^w^" ..^y:" ^- ^"..•^ y VERSUS \.^ 2/ ^ 3. Satyendra Kumar Singh, S/o Late Shri Harendra Narayan Singh^ aged about 63 years, R/o Godhanpur, Near Shiv Mandir, Ambikapur, Distt. Surguja (C.G.) State ofChhattisgarh Through- the Secretary, Department of Tribal Welfare, D.K.S. Bhawan Raipur (C.G.) The Joint Director., Treasury, Accounts and Pension, Bilaspur Division, Distt. Bilaspur (C.G.) Assistant Commissioner, Tribal Development Ambikapur, Distt. Surguja(C.G.) WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLES 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA HEGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH : BILASPUR PETITIONER RESPONDENTS WRiTPEiTI'DON (S)NO._7Q1 QF 2010. Satyendra Kumar Singh Versus of Chhattisaarh & Gthers (Writ Petition under Artlcie 226 of the Constitution of indla') SingSe Bench : Hon'ble Shrl Satlsh K. Agnihotn, J. Present:- Shri A.N. Pandey, Advocate for the petitioner,. Shri Satish Gupta, Government Advocate for the Stats. ORDER{ORALj (Passedon thls 4tn day of May, 2011.) 1. Chailenge in this petition Is to the order 27,122007 (Annexyre P/1) whereby. a sum of Rs. 46,546/BU'has dlrectecl to be recovered froni the retrial dues of the petilioner, holdlng it to be .excess payment to the 9etitloner durina the course of his service. 2. • Learned counsei appearing-for the petltioner submte the petltioner, whlle working as Principal at Higher Secondary Schooi, Lahpatra, Districi-Surguja, retired from service cn 31J2200S. on attalning the age of superannuatlon< Accordlng to the petltioner, the irnpugned recovery has been without afrording an oppoitynrty of hearing to the petltioner< and further, the issue whecher recoverv of excess payment can be made wlthout foilowing prlnclples of natural justice Is no longer re^ integrB.^e has by the Supreme Court in the of v. of and ofters , and further followed by th'is Court -in the of VidyadhBr Tlwari K The of & Orhers2 and Vidya Thvari v. of M.P. (Now Stste of ChhattlsgQrh) and othsrs'1 and thereafter foilowed In severai decislons. 3. This C-Qurt In Ramchandra Kurup v. of C.G. & 'Others4 and other connected matters, observed as under : "19. A common running'into the decislons of the Court Is for .of of ay'e thfae the 1 1»95Supp(1)SCC18 ^ 2006(1) MPHT105(CG) 3 2006 (2) MPHT 31 (CG)' 4 ^r\^r\ f^\ ^•r^.i i ^nn .i-U iU ^«J>; \>^<-3L-'sJ <-4-U^ -zn ^"^ I 1 /r^ ^ ^.^^" may be recovered. nameiy (i) madB on -account of or on tne af fhe empfoyee, (ii) the the in excess, (111) the wlthln a shosi span of tlme of wrong payment....^ 4. Learned counsei appearing for the State/respondents not controvert the submissions by learned counsei for the petltjoner and submits that thls may be of in the same terms. 5. In vlew .of foregoing and as by iearned counsel appearing for the parcies, this is of in the terms of the order In the of Kurup^. i:.e. the jmpugned order 27.12.2007 (A.nnexure P/1) regarding recovery of an amount of Rs. 46,546/- from the retrial of the petitioner on account of excess payment, Is hereby quashed. 6. However, it is open to the respondents to recourse to the provlsions ofthe Chhattisaarh Civji Services (Pension) Rules, 1976, ifso advised, in accordance wlth iaw, afterfoiiowing basic principies of natural justice. ^ Sd/- Satish K. Agnihotri Judge Aurn '-•^