^•^;- ...-^yrf"" Cffl^_ rt.C^ S^W-" ^ IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH JUDICATURE AT BILASPUR (C.G.Y W.P.rSlNO. 5^ /2010 TT Halalu Ram Kosaria, Retired Head Master S/o- Late Ghasia Ram Kosaria, Aged about 67 years, R/o- Village & Post- Goviudpur, Kanker, Distt- North Bastar, Kanker, Chhattisgarh. VERSUS State ofChhattisgarh, Through-Secretary, Departmeut of Tribal Welfare, D.K.S. Bhawan^ Mantralaya, Raipur, Chhattisgarh. Gollector, Tribal Welfare, Kanker, Distt. Kanker, Chhattisgarh. Joint Director, Treasury, Account and Pension, Baster Division, Jagdalpur, Chhattisgarh. 4. Assistant Commissioner, a Tribal Welfare, Kanker, Distt. Kanker; Chhattisgarh. .^^^^.. PETITIONER RESPONDENTS WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE^26 OFTHE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA (Hon. Mr. Justice Pritinker Diwakerj VERSUS Halalu Ram Kosaria State of Chhattisgarh and others •1- ^-^"\ Shri Shri j Shrivastava, counsei for the petitioner. Goverdhan, ORDER (14.12.2010) Challenge in the present writ petition is to the order dated 28.02.2006 (Annexure P-1) passed by respondent No.3 directim recovery of aileged excess payment of Rs. 36,261 from ihe petitioner after his retirement. 2. Counsel for the petitioner submits that before passing the order impugned ortalong a decision for recovery ofthe accessamount from the petitioner no opportunity of hearing whatsoever has been provided $0 him to explain his case and theorder impugned has been passed behind his back. [S. 3. On the other hand counsei for though no showcause notice has been issued to passing the order impugned, respondents are ful recovery of the access amount. iv before in making 4. Undisputedly, before passing the order impugned regarding recovery of the aecess payment made to the petitiQner, no opportunity -of hearing has been given to the petitioner nor has any show cause* notice been issued to him. The fact whether recovery of the excess payment for no fault of the employee can be made without complying v/ith the principle of natural justice is no tonger resjntegra and the same has been settled by the Supreme Court in vanous cases includina the case in the matter of Sahib Ram vs. State of Har^ana -•2-- and others reported in 1995 Supp (1) SCC 18 and in the matter of Syed Abduf Qadir and ofhers v. State of Bihar and others reported in (2009) 3 SCC 475 and relying on that judgment various orders have been passed by this Courtdirecting refund ofthe excessamount ifany recovered from the emptoyees. Any recovery from the retiral dues can be made incase there was any misrepresentation or fraud committed by the petitioner and that he had the Knowledge that the payment received by him is in excess. The aforesaid view has further been re- affirmed by the Apex Court in the matter of Yogeshwar Prasad and others v. National Inst. Edu. Planning and Admn. and others in Civi! Appeal Nos. 288.289 of 2005 vide order dated 21.10.2010. Practice of passing such orders involving civil consequences without glving show cause notice to the petitioner can no longer be approved. tn view of various pronouncements of the Apex Court and by this Court the said order deserves to be dismissed. 5. Accordingly, the petition is allowed. Order impugned is hereby set aside. Amount if any recovered so far is directed to be refunded to the petitioner with interest at the rateof6 per csnt per annum. No order as to costs. Needless to say that the respondents can always take the recourse to Rule 65 of the Chhattlsgarh Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1976 if so advised in accordance with law after foiiowing basic principles of natural justiee. Sd/- Pritinker Diwakcr Judge