INT'HEN<3N'Bl..EBl@l^®UetlB^iN:;Nfl^-Tffil^^ :.^l.A1^iEa:L^^I^RM:GS.:r:^''i';'^ ^w.'p.;.fsy'Nbf^M'®I®loii;2ai% PETITIONER .'•<?•? i:si^®f'DiENliI c^ -^'.s^-./^ -<^':,.^;'~1'^' ' ^' ^1'^^ c<''; :.<'": ^iV :- ^:. .^^" /^i^^ '^ l-aldl'^^ AAish^€;Sy/6' ^a^Ka^ Pt^sad. Mishra,,.^ year'S, Re^reci^^iS't'cirijlg'R^iher, W^WW^^fos^.WtQ^^ ^Hssiii.iiisW^ig^iie^^iiii ^. Sta1ie':ef^?^ia|yTg||h?i%i|J?|g Through ; T^e^Seeryel-ar'^SelTO®! Educatioh^l3&J tlst|ffen-t-,^,,Kl§%: Bhawan"Rajpar' ;(C.6^^'^;?^ :S^^^ •2.,.^..^oirrt.;'l''.^irec1%r'?'^^r^ aG(:6tmM? A^%nl n^^ •'•.DigfrTC^Ia^pHif^^^&'tg^ •^ ;.':^-'.-'^; s'! ,3.f;^ii|g^t^^:^E(:ll^(^jon^:Q®]|Biaep,;: Raigat'h^N :4^.^Pral^ip[le^^£':6oK©F'nN^1^|sllti)@^ Seconclary ScH®oi|g|^ael®b|@F|Gtar^ ^! 3fock,^,:RyS^g^fal|Isl"tt|||^wgaj"^ vSS^S. •^•^•S^^~S:ffSs » 5 Wt m ^ m :30'; ^ ii<<»': N <»< -(^^^ % HIQH COURT OF GHHATTESGARH •: BILASPUR W_RLTP_ET!T!ON(S1NQ;9460F2011 PETITIONER Lalaram Mishra RESPONDENTS :icie226ofthe Single Bench: Hon'bie Shri Satish .Versus State of Chhattisgarh & Others ri, J^.. Present:- Shri D.R. Patel, Advocate for the petitioner Shri Sushil Dubey, Government Advocate v (Passed on this 17 day of February, 2011) By the present petition, the petitioner chalienges the order dated 25-9-2002 (Annexure P/2) whereby a sum of Rs.26,272./- has been deducted from the retirai dues of the petitioner, hotdsng it to be excess payment made to the petitioner, dyring the course of his service. . • Learned, counsei appearing Tor the petitioner submits that the petitioner, working as Assistant Teacher, retired from sei'vsce on attaining theage of superannuation on 31-08-2002. Dyring the course of settlement of retiral dues, a sum of Rs.26,272/- was deducted holding it'to be excess payment made to the petitioner during the course of Kis service. Learned counsel further submits fhat the issue asto whether recovery of sxoess payment for no fault;of the empioyee c-an be made without foiiovifing th®principles of natural justice is no longer res irrtegra. The same has been settied by Hon'ble Supreme Court in various decisions (See Sysd Abdul Qadir antl others v. State ofBlharand others). This Court, re!ying on the above decisioris has passed severai orders, directing refund ofthe amount, if any, recovered from the empioyees, where theemployees were not glven ariy opportunity to expiainabout the excess payment, if any, made to them. Learned counse! further contends that any recovery from retiral dues can be matie oniy in case ifthere was any misrepresentation or fraud on the part of the empioyee and the emptoyee had knowiedge that the paymentwas received in excess. The error, ifany.could have been corrected within a short span of time from wrong payment. 1 /^r^Q'. ^ c;rlrt ^T^ ^v'^^ J O ^;^^ '•+/ ^ ^s^i? :^T^S ?j<Ah=^HW42£=^S3e£^HKU.Sa-.^5fc-:S^ ^. Arun Learned counsei appearing forthe respondents does not dispute the above submission made by leamed counsel appearing for the petitioner. However, he submits that the similar order may be passed, subject to verificaSion of racts. This Court, as well as Hon'ble Supreme Court, in a catena of decisaons, time and again reiterated that no recove;y of excess payment for no fault of the emDloyee can be made without foliowina the principles of naturai justice. This Court in Ramchandra Kurup v. Stete of C.G. & others and other connected matters, decided on 23ro November, 2009, observed as under: "18- A common thread runnina into the above decisions of fhe Supreme Court is that, for recovery of excess payrnent of emoEuments' aiiowances, there are three condiiions wherein the excess payment may be recovered, nameiy • (i) excess payment was made on account of empioyee, (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 In view of .the forgoing, the impugned order dated 25-9-2002 (Annexure P/2) directing recovery Rs.26,272/- on account of excess payment made to the petitioner, is hereby quashed. Ifthe amount has already been recovered, ihe petitioner is entitled to the said amount with interest st.the rate of6% per annum, subject to verification offacts. However, liberty is resen/ed to the State/respondents that if the excess paymenthas been made on account pf misrepresentation or fraud on the part of the .employee.or ths empioyee had ihe knowiedge that the payment received by him was in excess, fresh orders may be issued on verification of the Tacts, after affording opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. The writ petition Is accordingly disposed of. No order asto costs. y- ^^ teotn •vv.P^S) N'o. 3663 of 2009 ~^^-j^-'^f^--i ^'±^L