AT BILASPUR IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH 5W 0 > Maw V 3mm F2 wk. P. gS) No.75 o . Son of Amarrlath R L. Rathore Rathore aged about 61 years, Head Master Govt Mlddle School Sarkhon (Nawa) Block awagarh D1str1ct Jan3g1r / PETITIONER N Champa (C G ) vEgsns L (/State of Chhattisgarh, Through The Secretary, Educatmn Department D K S Bhawan, Ralpur (C G ) The D1str1ct Educatlon Off1cer, Jan] g1r-Champa D1str1ot J anlgxr- Champa (C. G.) '11. RESPONDENTS '2. e: . 3 13rmc1pa1 Govt Hlgher Secondary Sch arkhon D1str1ot Janjgm—Champa (o. G.) 001 wnrr PETITION UNDER oN ARTICLE OF INDIA 226 ' OF ‘ THE CONSTITUTI underzf The petitioner named above begs to submit as ARTICULARS OF THE PETITIONER‘. Ase gwen In the above cause title ® Hi‘GH CCU RT C)? $HHATT§SGARH : E§LA$?U¥€ ‘WRW PET§T§€DN (E33 N6“ 558‘”! OF 20(39 PE?§T30NER RL. Rathore ‘Veisus RESFfDN SEN”§”S Siate cf Chha‘ttisgarh & Othefs (‘Wm Pemon umder Articie 226 cf iha Constituticn ef indéa) Smgie Bemh : Hon‘b’ie Shri Satish K. Agnihatrt .3‘ Present :— Shri Somkant Verma, Adwcate fpr ihe peti‘iianer. Sm V,V.S. Mwthy, 3y. Adv. Gea'ierai with Shri PK. Bhaéw, Pane! Lawyei’ far the State‘ ORDER jORAL} {Wassed an this 22“ day a? March, 291 0} ;/Hl m‘x e / k Wiih tha comem 6f iearned caunseé apgaearing fer tha pames, me maiter is heard finaHy. 2. Chaiierige in ‘ihis petmon is i0 ihe amiar dated ’i4—9—20gQ {Aiwnexwe PN} whereby it has been difected to {ecover a sum of Rs. 40:024I- from the petitioner, hebding it is be excess paymem made ti) the petitianer, aiming the caume of his servica. 3. Learned ccunsei apgearing fer the pe‘titicner subméis that 'ihe seiitioner received a cemmunicmion dated 14-9-2§0§ {Annexure PH} éssued by ihe resmmdent auihoritées wharaby E has been dkec‘ted i0 ¥eceve¥ a sum of R3. 42‘628I— from the patitiener hmdmg ii ta be excess payment made t0 we peiitioner, durmg the course ef his sewice. 4A Learnea‘ caunsei fwther gum-ms me? the issue asto whether recovery of excess eayment f0! no fauit of ihe empioyee can be made wiihout foiiowing the principies of naiumi gueiice is m ionger res inteare The same has beee seitieei cv Hen’bie Supreme Cami Xx \‘y N 7}W in various decisions (See 3yed Abdm Qadfr and ca‘imrs v. State gisiher aged atiaery). 1.1135 Court miying on the abcve decisiens 3'1as passed severa¥ srders, dérecting refund of ihe amount, if any, :ecovea’ed from the empioyees, where we empiayees were not given any oppoztuni'ty to expiain aboui the excess payment, if any: made ta them. Shri Verma furthei contends that am; recaverv fmm :‘etirai dues can b5 made oniy in case if mere was am: misrepresentation or ‘ii‘aué an me pai‘i of the empioyee and ’ziiie empicyee had knowiedge that ‘ihe payment was receiveé in excess. The error: if any, couie have heera carrecied withim a Sheri span of iime from wrong payment The State in its retum has not adveited to the avermente macie by ‘ihe petitioner the? opportunity of heai’irig was not afforded to the goeiiiioriei and fuz‘iher ihe excees payment was made not or: account of misrewesentation of fyauci by ihe peiitionet The S‘iaie authorities have aiso riot sabmitted anything except that recovery was oydereci Oii account oi excess payment. Tiiis Com, as weii as Hon’bie $uoreme Court; in a catena of decisions, iime and again reitereied $hai no recovew of excess paymem for no fauit of the empioyee can be maoie withou’t foiiowing the principies of natuiai gusiice. iiiis 13mm in Hemoheedra Kemp v. Szate of £.$. é others? and oihe: Connected maiters, decided on 23rd November, 2999, observed as’ unoier: 1 1 (2009) 3 soc 475 2 w_P_(S) No. 3663 of 2o09 U). “19. A ccmmon ihfead running imo the 3bcve decisiena af the Supreme Caua‘t is that, f0! reccvery of exce$$ payment of am0%umen€sfa§lowances, there are thiee nonditions wheiein the exce3s payment may be mcovered, nameiy (i) excess paymen? was maée on account G? miswpyesentaimn e: fraad 0r; the part of ihe empéayee. (3%) me emphyee had knawiedge that the pavment received was if: e‘xcesa and (m) me ermr waa carrected withiia a short span of :ime of wrorag paymem .......... " ' in View c1? the fargeing! the impugned ofder dated 14-92889 (Annexure PH) directing {ecovew R3.40,024I- rm accoum of excess zsavment made to the aoetitiener. is iaei'ebv washed. if the amcunt has aiieady been recavered, e petiiirmer is eriiitieci to th the said amount with inierest at the rate a? 6% 176i annam. subiect to verificaiien of iacis. IN Hcwevei. iiberiy is {esewed t0 ihe State/{espemdents that if ‘ihe excess payment has been made en acceunt of mismpresenta‘iion 0r ffaud or: the pae‘i of ihe empioyee, or the empieyee had me knowledge that the payment received by his was in excess, fresh ciders may be issued on veiiiicatien of the fae’te, miter affording oepeiiuniiy of hearing to ihe petiiiener. 9. The writ peiition is accwdingiy disposed 0i. Ne emer esto oasis. i Sd/- I Satish K. Agnihetri i N Judge GoWi’i ‘ _