e^^s°V- IN THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR rw.p. rs) No. ....€.L/.2:3......./o9) PETITIONER Narsingh Lal S/o. fcate Badri Nath; aged about — 65 year; Retire Lecturer R/o Bawali-kuva (Baikuthpur) Raigarh, Tahsil & District - Raigarh (C.G.) VERSUS RESPONDENDS 1. f^ /^ y/4 Q i..-'vy.- /JL!y ^s^ 2. ^ ^<y / ^"^'^ ^K Stafe ofChhattisgarh, Through: Secretary Tribal welfare Department, D.K.S.Bhavan, Raipur (C.G.) TheDistrictEducationOfficer, Tah & Distt. Raigarh (C.G.) 3. The Joint Director, Treasiuy Account & Pension Division Office, Bilaspur (C.G.) 4. The Treasury^OfGcer, Treasury Office Raigarh Tah & Distt. Raigarh (C.G.) WRIT PETITIQN UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF CONSTITUTION OF ENDIA The petitioner named above respectfully begs to subruit as ^ uader:- PERTICULARS OFTHE PETITlONER: As mentioned in the cause title 2. PARTICULARS OF THE RESPONDENTS As mentioned in the cause title ii:''i'?;I^'futt'aE"' i=." H!GH COURT OF CHHATTISOARH : BILASPUR WRIT PETITION (S) N0.6429 OF 2009 PETITIONER NarsinghLal RESPONDENTS ^^ Versus State olChhattisgarh & Others pA/rit PeUtion under Article 226 of the ConsUtution of India) Singte Bench : Hon'bleShri Satish K. Agnihotri, J. Present:- Shri Vineet Pandey, counsel for the petitioner. Shri A;V. Sridhar, Panel Lawyer for the State. ORDER (ORAL) (Passed onthis 6th day ofJanuary, 2010) 1. By this petition, the petitioner impugns the order dated 19-2-2008 (Annexure - P/1) on the ground that an amount of Rs.62,050/- has been directed to be recovered from the retirat dues ofthe petitioner. 2. The indisputabte facts, in brfef, are that the petittoner wrerking as Principai retired from his service on attaining ttie age of superannuation on 31-1-2006. All of a sudden wttioutassigning any reason and withoutafforaing an opportunity of hearing, the impugned order dated 19-2-2008 (Annexure - P/1) was passed holding that fte excess payment to the tune of Rs.62,050/- has been madetothe petitioner and the said amount has been (jeducted from thei retiral dues of the pstitioner. Thus, this peUtion. 3. Learned counsalappearingforthe peUtioner submits that ths issue asto whether recovery of excess payment for no fautt of the employee can be made without following prinGiptes of natural justtee is no longer res iniegra, thesame has been settled bytheSupreme Court in the matter of Sahlb Ram v. Sfate of Haryana and o iers , and further followed by ttiis Court in the matter of Vfcfyadhar Tiwari (Supra). In the instant case, the impugned order has been passed without affording any opportumty of hearingtottie petifloner. 4. Leamed counsel appearing for the State subm'rts that at the time of submission of appiication for release of retrial dues, the prtitioner submitted an undwtaking that if any excess payment made to him that 11995 Supp (I)SCC 20 JWK may be recoverable by the Government frem his reUral dues. Learned counsel relies on Rule 65 of theChhattisgarti Civil Services (Pension) Rutes, 1976 (for short the Rules, 1976') ftirlhe purpose of recoyery and adjustment of Govemment dues. 5. The contention of the petitioner that even for exerctsing power under Rute 65 ofthe Rules, 1976. basic princjples of naturatjustice and fair play in action are required to befollowed. In the pressnt case, the State/authorities have not afforded any opportunity of hearing to the peBtioner to put Torward his case astowhy the deducUon from the gratulty amount being excess amount cannot be made. The contention of the leamed counsel for the petitioner merits acceptance. 6. As far as the contention of the tearhed counsel appearing for the State that the petitioner submitted undertata'ng for recovery of excess payment from his retirat dues is concemed, the same is noticed tB be rejected, as the undertakingwas obtained by ttie StateGovernment after ttie petitioner had already retired from his servjce.- (See RaghtweerSeHy.StateofChhattsgafh&Othe^). 7. This Couft, m Vklyadhar Tiwari (supra), has held that the excess paynent, if any, made to Uie petittoner, he was not at fault and Uie amount received byhim might have been used by adjusting Winseif accordingly treating Uie same as hissalary. At ttiis slage, direcBng recovery of the alleged excess amount from the pensionary benefits/gratuity amountofthe petitioner witl not bejust and proper. 8. In Syed Abdul Qadr & otftera v. Stefe <Sf Bihar & Others3, the Supreme Court observed that excess payment of emoluments/ atlowances cannot be recovered if the excess amount was not pai6 on account of any mis-representation or fraud pn the part of the employee and if such excess payment was made by the emptoyer by appiying a wrong principle fbrcalculating the pay/allowances or on the basis of a particular inteipretation of rule/order, which is sybsequently found to be erroneous. It is not the case of the respondents that tte exeess payment has been made to the petitioner on account of any mis-represerrtatlon w ftaud on the part ofthe petitioner. Theexcess payment might have 2 WP (S) N0.25S4 of 20EB deoided on 24-10^00-8 3 (2009) 3 SGC 475 been made by wrong catculation or wrong Interpretation of the provisions of taw, if any. 10. The Supreme Court as well as this Court in a catena of decisions, time and again reiteratesthat no recovery of excess payment for no fault of the employee can be made without following the [mnciples of natural jusUce. This Court in Ramchandra Kurup v. State of C.G. & Others and other connected matters, observed as under: "19. A common ttiread running- into the above dscisions of the Supreme Court is that, for recovery of exeess payment ef emoiuments/allowances, ftere are three conditions wherein the exeess payment may be recovered, namety (i) excess payment was made on account of inisfepresentatjonor fraud on the part ofthe emplpyee, (ii) the emptoyee had knowledge that the payment recejved was in excess, and (iii) the error was corrected within a short span of fime of wreng- payment......" 11. In view of foregoing, ttiis petition is altawed. The impugned order dated 19-2-2008 (Annexure—P/1)regardlng recovery of Rs.62,050/- from the reflral dues of the petiUoner is hereby quashed. The petitioner is entitled to full pensionary benefits/gFatuHy amount without any deduction. If the said amount is already deducted, the same shalt be payable to the petitioner with simpte interest @ 6% pw annum. No order asto costs. Sdl— SatishK.Agaihotn ^-Judge ^ s WP (S) N0.3663 of2009deeided on 23-11-2009 ,