^> ^ '^ /^ /"" SIMGLE BEWCW /- IN THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR W.P.fS). No.^6^ /20Q8 PETITIONER : Dr. Rajkumar Gautam, S/o Shri Ramprasad Gautam, Aged about ^° . ,-^^yi 63 years, Retired Head Master, .^:- ^ss RESPONDENTS Middle School Badhawandand, Gourela, Block-Pendraroad, District-Bilaspur (C.G.) VERSUS ^ : 1. State of Chhattisgarh Through : The Secretary Education Department, D.K.S. Bhawan Raipur (C.G.) 2. Joint Director Treasury, Account & Pension, Bilaspur Division, District-Bilaspur (C.G.) ^ 3. District Education Officer, Bilaspur, District-Bilaspur (C.G.) 4. Block Education Officer, Gourela, Block-Pendraroad, District- Bilaspur (C.G.) WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA. pChlii^ HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH : BILASPUR Writ Petition (S) No. 7164 of 2008 Petitioner Dr. Rajkumar Gautam Versus Respondents State of Chhattisgarh 85 others WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA (SB: Hon'ble Shri Satish K. Agnihotri J.) Shri K. S. Pawar, Advocate for the petitioner. Shri A. V. Shridhar, Panel Lawyer for the respondents. O RD E R (Oralt (Passed on this 9th day of March, 2010) 1. With the consent of the parties, the matter is heard finally. 2. Challenge in this petition is to the order dated 8.2.2008 (Annexure P/l), whereby an amount of Rs. 29,655/- has been recovered from the retiral dues of the petitioner towards excess payment niade to the petitioner. 3. Learned counsel appearing for the parties submit that the issue involved in the present case is squarely covered by the order passed by this Court in Vidyadhar Tiwari Vs. State of Chhattisgarh and others 1 and the Order dated 28th April, 2008, passed by this Court in Smt. Premsundari Das Vs. State of Chhattisgarh & another2. 4. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner wasnot given any opportunity to explain about the payment made to the petitioner. Thus, this order is vitiated for want of compliance of the principles of natural justice and fair play in action. Learned counsel further submits that there is no 1 2006 (1) M.P.H.T. 105 (CG) 2 W.P.(S) No. 2376/2008 ^t^: ^-^-- fault on the part of the petitioner and the amount is p^M-to^him in accordance with the pay scales, revised and fixed by the respondents from time to time. No reason has been assigned asto on which count the excess payment, if any, was made. The respondents cannot recover the amount, already paid to the petitioner after his retirement, that too without following the principles of natural justice. Learned counsel appearing for the respondents/State submits that it is true that no show cause notice was given to the petitioner. The petitioner was not called upon to subm.it his explanation for payment of alleged excess payment and recovery thereafter. The respondent-authorities have not followed the principles of natural justice and the impugned action has been taken without affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. The practice of passing order involving civil consequences, without show cause notice or without affording an opportunity, is condemned. The issue asto whether recovery of excess payment can be made after retirement of the employee is no longer res integra. The same has been settled by Hon'ble Supreme Court in various decisions. In Syed Abdul Qadir and others vs. State of Bihar and others3, Hon'ble Three Judges of the Supreme Court, having considered all the aspects of the matter and the decisions renderedby the Supreme Court in the past, observed as under: (2009) 3 SCC 475 ^^>.._s^ 't'^^^^" « - 3- <<57. This Court, in a catena of decisions, ha^gr9.irted relief against recovery of excess payment of emoluments/allowances if (a) the excess amount was not paid on account of any misrepresentation or fraud on the part of the employee, and (b) if such excess payment was made by the employer by applying a wrong principle for calculating the pay/allowance or on the basis of a particular interpretation of rule/order, which is subsequently found to be erroneous. 58. The relief against recovery is granted by courts not because of any right in the employees, but in equity, exercising judicial discretion to relieve the employees from the hardship that will be caused if recovery is ordered. But, if in a given case, it is proved that the employee had knowledge that the payment received was in excess of what was due or wrongly paid, or in cases where the error is detected or corrected within a short time of wrong payment, the matter being in the realm of judicial discretion, courts may, on the facts and circumstances of any particular case, order for recovery of the amount paid in excess. See Sahib Ram v. State of Haryana, Shyam Babu Verma v. Union of India, Union of India v. M. Bhaskar, V. Gangaram v. Director, Col. B.J.Akkara (Retd.) v. Govt. of India, Purshottam Lal Das v. State of Bihar, Punjab National Bank v. Manjeet Singh and Bihar SEB v. Bijay Bhadur." ^ 8. In view of the forgoing, the petition is allowed. The impugned order dated 8.2.2008 (Annexure P/l), directing recovery of Rs. 29,655/-, on account of excess payment made to the petitioner, is hereby quashed. The petitioner is entitled to full retiral benefits without any deduction in view of the order dated 8.2.2008, in accordance with law. If the amount has already been recovered, the petitioner is entitled to the said amount with interest at the rate of 6% per annum. No order asto costs. Sd/- Satish K. Agnihotri Judge Thakur