C tp \ff^7 /-- IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BLLASPUR (CHHATTISGARH) WRIT PETITION fS) N0:^ "f ^ /2010. ^ ^ PETITIONER: ^y ^Q^y ^^^ <.» >" <„•" ^' ^ ^ Respondents Lochan Prasad Jhap, son of Late Khedu Ram Jhap, aged about 68 years, residenceof village and post Xo^^^^- I^eki^fyakha?) Tahsil Patthalgaon, District Jashpur, Chhattisgarh. versus ^ 1. State of Chhattisgarh, Through Secretary, Department ofTribal Development, Dau Kalyan Singh Bhawan, Raipur, Chhattisgarh. , 2. The Joint Director, Accounts Treasury and Pension, Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh. 3. District Treasuiy, Account, Jashpur, District Jashpur, Chhattisgarh. WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 QF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA ^L.. <-2.^ HIGH COURT OF CHHATTiSGARH : BILASPUR PETJTIONER WRiT PETITION (S) N0. 74Z_GE2010 Lochan Prasad Jhap Versus RESPONDENTS State of Chhattisgarh & others. (Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India) Single Bench : Hon'bie Shri Satish K. Agnihotri, J. Present:- Shri CJ.K. Rao, Advocate for the petitioner. Shri M.P.S. Bhatia, Deputy Govemment Advocate wlth Shri A.V. Sridhar, Panel Lavvyer for the State. ORDER(ORAU (Passed on this 29th day ofApril, 2010) 1. Chailenge in this petition Is to the order dated 26.03.2002 (Annexure P/1), whereby a sum of Rs. 22.688/- (Rupees Twenty Two Thousand, Slx Hundred and Elghty Eight) towards excess payment made to the petltioner has been directed to recovered from the retiral dues. 2. Learned counsel appearing for the petltioner submits that the issue asto v^hether, recovery for excess payment 'for no fault of the employee can be made without foilowlng the princlptes of natural justice is no Songer res integra. The issue has been settied by Hon'ble Supreme Court in various decislons (See Syed Abdul and others vs. State of BIhar and others1). This Court, reiying on the above decisions has passed several orders, directing refund of the amount, if any, recovered from the employees, where the employees were not given any opportunity to expiain about the excess payment, if any, made to them. 3. Learned counsel appearing for the respondents does not dispute the above submisslon made by ieamed counsel appearing for the petitioner. However, he submits that the simiiar order may'be passed, subject to verificatlon of facts, asto whether the petltioner - (2009) 3 SCC 475 /y^% "'^ I? ^W:'^ 3 ^^'^/ ^fc^^^ '•^ z; Arun has obtained the. excess amount on misrepresentation 'or fraud on the part ofthe employee. This Court as weli as Hon'ble Supreme Court in a catena of decisions, tsme and again relterates that no recovery of excess payment for no fault of the empjoyee can be made without foilowing the principies of natura! justice. Thls Court in Ramchasridra Kurup Vs. State of C.G. & others2 and other connected matters, decided on 23 November, 2009, observed as under "19. A common thread running into the above decisjons of the Supreme Court is that, for recovery of excess payment of emoiuments/ailowances, there are three conditions wherein the excess payment may be recovered, nameiy ($) excess payment was made on account of misrepresentatjon or fraud on the part of the employee, (ii) the empioyee had knowledge that the payment received was In excess, and (iii) the error was corrected wjthin a short span of time of wrong payment........." in view of the settled position of law on the point, the petition deserves to be and is allowed, Accordingly, the impugned order dated 26.03.2002 (Annexure P/1), directing recovery of Rs. 22,688/- on account of excess payment made to the petitioner, is hereby quashed. If the amount has already been recovered, the petitioner is entltled to the said amount with interest at the rate of 6% per annum, subject to verification of facts,'asto whether the petltloner has obtained the excess amount on misrepresentation or fraud on the part of the petitioner. No order asto costs. Sd/- . _ satteb^otrl - W-P- (S$ No. 3663 of 2009