p^^s»» vl<^, ^K^.y ;? I^wrt c ^- \ IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BILASPUR (C.G.l w.p. rsiNo. ]^h 2010 PETITIONER D. L. Ratre S/o. Late K. R. Ratre Aged about 60 years R/o. Near Talab, Tala Para, Mini mata nagar, Bilaspur (CG). VERSUS RESPONDENT(S) : 1. State of Chhattisgarh Through: The Secretary, Department of Veterinary Services, Mantralaya, D.K.S. Bhawan Raipur (CG). .oe '/. <y ^ </y'. ^'^' WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA 2. The Joint Director, Department of Veterinary Services, Dist.: Bilaspur (CG). •^s.^ ^^^^-" ^ ^iy '^' HJGHCQURTOFCHHATTiSGARK WRIT PET;(TJON(S) N0.1001 OF 2010 PETITIONER D.L. Ratre RESPONDENT Versus State of Chhattisgarh & Another (Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution ot ind»a) Single Bench : Hon'ble Shri Satish K. Agnihotn, J. Present:- Shri P.S. Koshy, Advocate for the petitioner. Shri Ajit Singh, Panet Lawyer for the State. ORDER(QRAU (Passed onttHs9th day of March, 201 1) 1. The petitioner is aggrieved by the communication dated 23-02-2010 (Annexure P/1), whereunder the petitioner was directed to deposit the excess payment made to him during the period from 01-04-2004 to 30-04-2009 and from 01-01-2006 to 31-01-2010. 2. According to Jeamed counseS appearing for the petitiooer, the impygnecJ recovery has been made without affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, and further, the issue asto whether recovery of excess payment can be made without toliowing principies of nalyral justiae is no ionger res integra, the same has been settied by the Supreme Court In the matter of Sahib Ram v. State of Haryana and c^iers', and further followed by thts Court in the matter of Vidyadhar Tfwari v. The Stafe of Chhattisgsrh & Othersi and Vfdys Shankar TIWQH v. Stats ofM.P. (Nsw State of ChhaWsgarh) and off?ef5 and thereafter foltowed in several decisions. 3. This Court in Ramchandra Kurup v. Stefe of C.G. & Others and other connected matters, obsewed as under : 1 ., ^ -«.« ^1995 8upp(1)8cc 18 2 2006 (1)MPMT105 (CG) 3 2006 (2) MPHT 31 (CG) 4 2010(3)c0u 400' l^ ^^e^-^v.^^ ^'i. "'^ .,.fy:^:A.. i t.-.^ 1 •^ff ^ 2 "19. A common thread runnjng into the abov@ decssioRs of the Suprems Court is ' that, for recovery of excess payment of emoluments/allowances, there are three conditions wherein the ©xcsss payment may be recovered, namely (i) excess payment was made on account of misrepresentation or fraud on the parl of the emptoyee, (ii) the employee had knowiedge that the payment received was jn excess, and (iii) the error was corrected within a short span of time of wong payment....." Learned counsel appearing for the State/respondents does not controvert the submissions made by tearned counset for the petitioner and submits that this matter may be disposed of in the same terms. In view of the foregoing and as admitted by tearned counsel appearing for the parties, this petition is disposed of in the terms of ttie order passed 'n the case of Ramchandra Kuwp4. i.e. the impugned order dated 23-02-2010 (Annexure P/1) regarding recovery proceedlngs on account of excess payment, is hereby quashed. if the amount has been recovered, the petitloner Is entitted to the said amount. However, it is open to the respondents to take recourse, if so advised, in accordance with taw, after following basic principles of naturai justice. Arun Sd/- SatishK.Agnihotri Judge