^ 1 C ^1<-^7 /-- IN THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BILASPUR (C.G.l W.P. (S) N0. ? ^V 12009 S.B. PETITIONER ^0&.^y>/ .<5^tf^f"^1 ^^^pt- ^^'"' ^e' '^,A.^ RESPONDENTS M.I.Khan, S/o Late Shri M.R.Khan, aged about 62 years, R/o Taiba Chowk, Talapara Bilaspur, Distt. Bilaspur (C.G.) VERSUS : 1. State of Chhattisgarh Through - Secretary, Higher Education Department, D.K.S. Bhawan Raipur (C.G.) 2. Divisional Joint Director, Treasury Account and pension Bilaspur, Distt. Bilaspur (C.G.) WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA •"^. ^ HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH : BILASPUR Writ Petition (S) No. 3073 of 2009 Petitioner M. I, Khan Versus Respondents State of Chhattisgarh & another WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OFTHE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA (SB: Honlale Shri Satish K. Agmhotri J.) Stiii Soiakaut Vemia, Advocate for the petitioiier, Ms Sinita Ghai, Panel Lawyer for the State/respondents. < QRDER(Oral» (Passed on this 5th day ofOctober, 2009) Heard. 1. The challenge ia this petition is to the order dated 10.4.2007 (Aunexure P/1), whereby recovery of Rs. 29,942/- (Rupees Twenty-nine Thousand, Nuie Hundred and Forty-two) was directed to be inade froin the pensionaiy/retlral benefits on account of excess paynient raade to the petitioner. 2. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was not given any opportunity to explaia about the payment niade to the petitioner. Thus, this order is vitiated for waut of conipUance of the pnnciples of natural justice and fau- play in acUon. Learned counsel farther submits that there is no fault on the part ofthe petitioner and the aiaount is paid to hiin ia accordance with the pay scales, revised and fixed by the respoudents froni tiine to tune. No reason has been assigned asto on which couut the excess payment, if any, was made. The respondents cannot recover the amount, already paid to the petitioner after his retirement, that too without foUowiag the principles of natural justice. IJJ.. ^' 1 '^% ^ ^p^. Despite grant of opportunity to the respondeuts/State to file return, no return has been filed. It appears that the respoudents have nothing to say in the niatter. However, learned counsel appearing for the respondents/State subiaits that it is tnie that no show cause notice was given to the petitioner. The petttioner was not caUed upon to submit his explanation for paynient of aUeged excess payiuent and recovery fhereafter. The respondent-authorities have not followed the pnnciples of natural justice and the inipugned action has been taken wifhout affordmg aii opportumty of hearing to the petitioner. The practice of passing order involving civil consequences, without show cause notice or without affording aa opportunity, is condemned, The issue asto whether recovery ofexcess payinent caii be xnade after retireraent of the eniployee is no longer res iategra. The saaie has been settled by Hon^le Supreme Court m vadous decisions. In Syed Abdul Qadir and others vs. State of Bihar aad others1, HouT3le Three Judges of the Suprenie Court, having considered all the aspects of the raatter and the decisions rendered by the Suprerae Court ia the past, observed as under: "57, This Court, in. a catena of decisions, has granted reUef against recovery ofexcess paynient ofeiiioluments/aUowances if (a) the excess amount was not paid on accouut of any niisrepresentation or fraud on the part of the exnployee, aad (b) if such excess payment was made by the employer by applying a wrong prmciple for calculatiag the pay/allowaace or on the basis of a particular interpretation of rule/order, which is subsequently foiiad to be erroneous. 58. The reUef agaiast recovery is granted by courts not because of aay right m the employees, but m equity, exercismg jiidicial discretion to relieve the employees from the hardship that wiU be caused if recovery is ordered. But, if in a given case, it is proved that the eniployee had kaowledge that the payment received was ia excess of what was due or wrongly paid, or in cases where the en'or is detected or corrected witlmi 1 (2009) 3 SCC 475 ^i^ a short tiaie ofwrong paynient, the niatter being ia the realm of judicial discretion, courts niay, on the facts aiid circumstances of aay particular case, order for recovery of the amount paid in excess. See Sahib Ram v. State of Haiyana, Shyanx 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 Baxik v. Maajeet Siugh aad Bihar SEB v, Bijay Bhadur," In view of the forgoiag, the petition is allowed. The impugned order dated 10,4.2007 (Annexnre P/l), directiag recoveiy of Rs. 29,942/-, on account of excess payinent niade to the petitioner, is hereby quashed. The petitioner is entlUed to full retiral beuefits without any deduction. If tiie amount has already been recovered, the petitioner is entitled to the said amoiint with iaterest at the rate of 6% per aiuiura. No order asto costs. Thakur Sd/- SatishK.Agnihotri Judge