^^^Y •io-""^5»^^I^-^ ^:^6*W Y<ese " AaVe&-""" <-^P| ZT-S 7 /^- IN THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR W.P,(S) No^ S?S^_ _/20Q9 PETITIONER RESPONDENTS ^ 1] 2] 3] 4] 5] 6] Vasudev Prasad Gupta,—S/o, Late Vishwanath Ram, Aged about 62 years, R/o. Village Injani, Tahsil Wadrafnagar, Surguja (C.G.) VERSUS State of Chhattisgarh, through: Secretary, Tribal Welfare Department, D.K.S. Bhawan, Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.) Assistant Commissioner, Tribal Welfare Ambikapur, District Surguja (C.G.) Assistant Directot, Kosh Lekha, & Pension, Bilaspur Division, Bilaspur (C.G.) Joint Director, Kosh Lekha & Pension Bilaspur, District Bilaspur (C.G.) Accountant General, Chhattisgarh, (^QT ?7 '^3T ?^»7" 12/97) Raipur, Raman Mandir, Ice Factory Building, Fafadih Chowk, Raipur, District Raipur (CG) Block Education Officer, Wadrafnagar, Surguja, District Surguja (C.G.) ^*-. WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA 1] PARTICULARS OF THE PETITIONER (S): As stated above in the cause title. . 2] PARTICULARS OF THE RESPONDENT (S): As stated above in the cause title. u HIGHCOURTOFCHHATTISGARH^BiyYSPUR Writ Petition fS) No. 5636 of 2009 Petitioner Vasudev Prasad Gupta Versus Respondents State 6f Chhattisgarhfis others WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF^mE_CQNSTrTUT!ON_OF INDIA (SB: Hon'ble Shn Satish K. Agnihotri J.) Shri Manoj Paranjpe, Advocate for the petitioner. Shri P. K. Bhaduri, Panel Lawyerfor the respondents No. 1 to 4 85 6. Shri Raghvendra Pradhan, Advocate for the respondent No.5. ^. ORDER(Oral( (Passed on this 24U1 day ofNovember, 2009) Heard. Challenge in this pedtion is to the order dated 2.2.2009 (Annexure P/l),wherebya sum ofRs. 36,468/- (Rupees Thirty Six Thousand, Four Hundred and Sjxty-eight) towards excess payraent made to the petitioher has been directed to be recovered from the petitioner. Leamed counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was not given any opportunity to explain about the payment made to the petitioner. Thus, this order is vitiated for want ofcompliance of the principles of natyral justice and fair play in action. Leamed counsel further submits that there is no fault on the part of the petitioner and the amount is paid to him in accordance with the pay scales, revised and fixed by the respondents from time to time. The reason assigned for recovery is not sustainable, as there was no fault on the part of the petitioner. The respondents cannot recover the amount, already paid to the petitioner without following the pririciples of natural justice. Learned counsel appearing for the respondents submits that if the excess paymenf was made to the pefitioner, the same can be recovered at the time ofsettlement ofretiral dues. ~\ \ < \ :! i[ .i II I . ! li: -LLj 1 ;: 11 ii ^e-: The respondent-authorities have not followed the principles of natural justice and the impugned action has been taken without affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. The practice of passing order involving civil consequences, without show cause notice or without affording an opportunity, is condemned. The issue asto whefher recovery of excess payment for no fault of the employee can be made without following the principles of natural jusdce is no longer res integra. The same has been settled by Hon'ble Supreme Court in various decisions. In Syed Abdul Qadir and others vs. State of Bihar and others1, Hon'ble Three Judges ofthe Supreme Court, having considered all the aspects ofthe matter and the decisions rendered by the Supreme Court in the past, observed as under: "57. This Court, in a catena of decisions, has granted relief against recoveiy of excess payment of emoluments/allowances if (a) the excess amount was not paid on account of any misrepresentation or fraud on the part of the employee, and (b) if such excess payment was made by the employer by applying a wrong principle for calculating the pay/allowance or on the basis of a particular interpretation of rule/order, which is subsequently found to be erroneous. 58. The relief against recovery is granted by courts not because of any right in the einployees, but in equity, exercising judicial discretion to relieve the employees from the hardship that will be caused if recoveiy is ordered. But, if in a given case, it is proved that the employee had knowledge that the payment received was in excess of what was due or wrongly paid, or in cases where the error is detected or corrected within a short time ofwrong payraent, the matter being in the realm ofjudicial discretion, courts may, on the facts and circumstances of any particular case, order for recovery of the amount paid in excess. See Sahib Ram v. State of Haryana, Shyam Babu Verma v. Union of India, Union of India v. M. Bhaskar, V. Gangaram v. Director, Col. B.J.Akkara (Retd.) v. Govt. of India, F'urshottam Lal Das v. State of Bihar, Punjab National Bank v. Manjeet Singh and Bihar SEB v. Bijay Bhadur." 6. This Court as well as Hon'ble Supreme Court in a catena of decisions, time and again reiterates that no recovery of excess payment for no fault of the employee can be made without '(2009)3SCC475 . following fhe principles of natural justice. This Court in Ratnchandra Kurup Vs. State of C.G. & others2 and other connected matters, decided on 23rd November, 2009, observed as under: "19. A common thread running into the above decisions of the Supreme Court is that, for recovery of excess payment of eniployinents/allowances, there are three conditions wherein the excess payment may be recovered, namely (i) excess paynient was made on account of niisrepresentation or fraud on the part of the employee, (ii) the employee had knowledge that the payment received was in excess, and (iii) the error was corrected within a short span of time of wrong payment.........." 7. 8. Thakur In view of the forgoing, the petition is allowed. The impugned order dated 2.2.2009 (Annexure P/l), direeting recovery of Rs. 36,468/-, on account of excess payment made to fhe petitioner, is hereby quashed. If the amount has already been recovered, the petitioner is entitled to fhe said amount with interest at the rate of 6% per annum. No order asto costs. With regard to the amount of G.P.F. learned counsel appearing for the respondent No.5 submits that appropriate sanction for grant of G.P.F. with interest to the tune of Rs. 11,02,764/- has already been granted on 29.10.2009. It is expected, that the same shall be released forthwith to the petitioner. ,boW W.P.(S)No. 3663 of2009 i'llll