t^ \sr-^^ iil^^^^- ^ ^ IN THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF CHHAmSGARH AT BILASPUR W. P. (S) No. 6 of 2010 PETITIONER / .. ^' •^ lC^ :^ ,--:^ ^O ...^6^.o ^^y ..•"' ^y^ ^x RESPQNDENTS ^ Chandrakant Shrivastava, aged c^ about 68 years, S/o Late Kanhaiyalal Shrivastava, Retired Assistant Teacher, Sarvedas Middle School, Rajnandgaon, R/o Durga chowk, Rajnandgaon (C.&.) VERSUS ^:1. State of Chhattisgarh Through : The Secretary School Education Department, D.K.S. Bhawan Raipur (C.&.) ^2. Joint birector Treasuries, accounts <& Pension, Raipur, District-Raipur (C.6.) /3. District Education Officer, Rajnangaon, District- Rajnandgaon (C.&.) y4. Block Education Officer, Rajnandgaon, District- Rajnandgaon (C.(9.) /5. District Treasury Officer, Rajnandgaon, Distt. Rajnandgaon (C.&.) WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CQNSTITUTION OF INDIA. ^> HIGH COURT OF CHHAITISGAKB AT BILASPUR WRIT PETITION f8) No. 89 of2010 PETmONER : Chandrakant Shrivastava. VER8U8 RE8PONDENT8 : State ofCMiattisgarh & Otiiers. Writ Petition Under Article 226 QfThe CQastitutton Qf'Iadia S&itonlblcSluiSattshK.ASBfflhoteisJ, Present: Shri K.S^Pawar, Advocate forthe petitioner, Shri Y.S.Thakur, Deputy Advocate Genera! forthe State/respondents. OBAjLQJRDiER (Passed on 1 lm day of January, 2010) 1. With the consent of leamed counsel qipearing for tfae parties, the petition is heard finally. 2, The petitionen working as Assistaiit TeachCT, retired jfrom service <m attainmg tiie age of superannuation on 30.11.2(X)3 fr<MB Saryedas Middle School, RajnandgaojEL ChaUonge in this petition is to the order dated 31.12.2003 (Amiexure P/l), whereby a sum ofRs. 21,215/- has been ordered to be deducted from tfae retiral dues holding it to be excess payment made to fhe petitioner during fhe course ofhis service. ^ 3. Leamed couasel appearmg fbr the petitioner submite fhat fhe petitioxier was not given any opportuitlty to e5q>lain about It^ payment made to him. 'fhus, the impugned order is vttiated far want ofcompliance ofthe principles of natural justice and fair play in action. Leamed counsel further submits tfiat tiiere is no fault on the part oftiie petitioiier and the amount was paid to him in accordance with tfae pay scales, revised and fixed by fhe respondents firom time to time. The respondente caimot ^ reeover the amount, already paid to the petitioner wftfaout fbllowmg the principles ofnaturaljustice. 4. Leamed counsel appearmg for the respondents submite tfaat iftibie excess payment was made to fhe petitioner, the same ean be recovered at tihie time ofsettlemetrt ofretiral dues. 5. The issue asto whefher recovery of excess payment for no fault ofthe employee can be made witiiout following Ifae prmciples of natural justice is no longer res mtegra. The same has been ^ettled by Hoii'ble Supreme Court in various decisions. In SyedAbdul Qadir and ofhers v. State of BihQr and athers1^ Hon'ble lliree Judges offhe Supreme Court, having considered all the aspects ofthe matter and tiie decisions rendered by the Supreme Court m tfae past, obsCTved as under: "57. This Court, in a catena of decisions^ has granted relief against recovery ofexcess payment of emolumetits/allowaiices if(a) fhe excess amount was iiot paid on accoimt ofany niisrepresentation or fraud on the part offhe ^nployee, and (b) ifsuch excess payment was made by tiie employer by applymg a wrong prmciple fbr calculatmg tfae pay/allowance or on fhe basis of a particular ititerpretation of mle/order, which is subsequently found to be erroneous, 58. The relief againsl recovery is granted by courts aot because of any rig^hit m tlie employees, but in equity, exercisingjudicial discretion to relieve tfie employees from the hardsliip tfaat will be caused if recovery is ordered. But, if in a given case, it is proved that tiie employee had kjttowledge fliat Ae payment received was in excess ofwhat was due or wrongly paid»or in cases where the error is detected or corrected within a short time of wrong payment, the matter beiiig m tho realm ofjudicial discretion^ courts may, on the facts and circumstances of any pailicular case, order for recovery ofthe amount paid m excess. See Sahib Ram v. State of Haryaiia, Shyam Babu Vemia v. Union of India, Union of 1 (2009) 3 SCC 475 < India v. M. Bhaskar, V. Gangaram v. Directw, Col. BJ.Akkara (Retd.) v. Govt. oflndia, Purshottam Lal Das v. State of Bihar, Punjab National Bank v. Manjeet Singli aiid Bihar SEB v. Bijay Bhadur." This Coiirt as well as Hon'ble Supreme Court iti a (^ttona ofdecisions, time and again reiterates that no recovery ofexcess payment fbr no fault oflfae employee can be made without fbllowmg the principtes ofnatoral jystice. This Court in Ramchandra Kurupv. State ofC.G. & other^ and other connected matters, decided on 23rd November, 2009, observed as under: "19. A common thread mmimg itito fhe above docisiom of the Supreme Court is tihat^ for recov^ry ofexcess payment of emoluments/allowances^ fh^re are three conditioiis wherein tibie excos^ paymoirt may be recovered. namely (i) excess payment w<^s made on account of misrepresentatioii or fraud on Ae part of fhe employee, (ii) tfae employee had knowledge thatthc paymCTt received was m ^xcess^ aiid (iii) the error was corrected wifhin a short span oftime of wrong paymesit." In view ofthe forgomg. the petition m alloweA tFhe impugned wder dated 31.12.2003 (Amiexure P/l), directing recovery ofRjs. 21,215/- on account ofexcess payment made to tfae petitioner. is heretoy quashed. If tiie amoixnt has already been recovered,, the petitioiier is etititledto tfae said amount witfi irrterest at fhe rate of 6% per aimumy subject to verification oftacts. No order asto costs. Sd/- SatishK.Agnihotri Judge Amit 2w W.P.(S)No. 3663 of2009