^^\..^': ^.•-:'7^.'-'°' >-<"^'u*/.--""" .. -\'».-••" . ..-••• \^^^^ f J. -f^^ " (-? 0^'^ffCY^—^ IN THE fflGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BDLASPUR W.P.fS)No. _?Ly> of 2011 PETmONER Raca Sharan Dwivedi, aged about 66 /' years Son of Late Shn Lalji Prasad Dwivedi, Resident of Village- M -89 Bartunga, Post oflice- Chinmiri, District — Korea(C.G.). VERSUS RESPONDENTS: 1. State of C.G. Through: The Secretary, Department of Tribal welfare, DJLS Bhawan, Raipur (C.G.). 2. Assistant Commissioner, Department of Tribal welfare, District —Korea.(C.G.). 3. The Joiat Director, Lekha Kosh Awam Pension, BUaspur, (C.G.) WRTT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226/221 OF_ TIffi CONSTITUTION OF DMDIA FOR TEiE ISSUANCE OF WRTT IN THE NATURE OF MANDAMUS CERTTORARI, ^QI^mCTT AND FOR OTIffiR SUTTABLE WRTT OR WRTTS ORDER OR ORDERS DffiECTION OR DIRECTIONS. The petitioner above named most humbly and respectfuUy begs to suhmit as uader : 1. PARTICULARS OF THE PETmCT? Same as given in fhe cause title. 2. PARTICULARSOFTHERESPONDENTS Same as given in the cause title. COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPU1 w uVRIT PETJTION (Sj NO.JTj Versus Ram Sharan Dwivedi Staie of Chhattisgarh & Others WRIT PETITiON UNDER ARTICLE 22S/227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF I.NDIA Smt. Ranjana Jaiswai, Advocate forthe petitioner Shri Satish Gupta, Government Advocate for fhe (Psssed on 01st day of April, 2011) Challenge in this petition is to the order dated 12.04.2007 (t P/2) whereby, a sum of Rs. 60,541/- has been directed to be recovered from the retrial dues of the petitioner, holding it to be excess payment made to the petitloner during the course of his sen/ice. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner, while working as Lecturer, retired from sen.'ice on 31.03.2006, on attainlna the age of superannuation. According to the petitioner, the impugned recovery has been made without affording an opportunlty of hearing to the petitioner, and further, the issue asto v/hether recovery of excess payment can be made without followlng principles of nsturai justice Is no longer res mtegra, the same has been settled by the Supreme Court in the matter of Sahib Ram v. State ofHaryana and others , and further foliowed by this Court in the matter of Vidyadhar Tiwari v. The State of Chhattisgarh & Other^ and Wdya Shankar Tmari v. State of M.P. (Now State of ChhatSsgarh) and others and thereafter followed in several decisions. Thls Court in Ramchandra Kurup v. State ofC.G. & Others and other connected matters, observed as under : "19. A common thread running into the above decisions of the Supreme Court is that, for recovery of excess payment of ;1995Supp(1)SCC18 2 2Q06 fl^ MP!-iT 105 'CG) 3 2006 (2) MPHT 31 (CG) 42010-<3)CGU400 '^iSl. moluments/atlowances, there are three B; conditions msy be payment the (y in excess, within a payment. wherein ths excass payment recovered, namely (i) excess was made on account of or fraud on the part of (ii) the employee had that the payment received was and (iii) tha error was corrected short span of time of wrong 4. Learned counsel appearing for the State/respondents does not controvert the submissions made by leamed counsei for the petitioner and submits that this matter mav be disposed of in the same terms. 5. in view of the foregoing and as admitted by learned counse! appearing for the parties, this petition Is disposed of in the terms of the order passed in the case of Ramchandra Kurup . i.e. the Impugned order dated 12.04.2007 (Annexure P/2) regarding recovery ofan amount of Rs. 60.541/- from the retrial dues of the petitioner on account of excess payment, is hereby quashed. The petitioner is entitled to full pensionary benefits/gratulty amount without any deduction. If the amount has been recovered, the petitioner is entiiled to However, liberty is reserved to the respondents to take appropriate steps, if so advised, in accordance with the principles of natura! justice and under the provisions of law. Sd/- Satish K. Agaihotri Judge