IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF CHHATTISGARIj w W.P.(s.) N0. £26613 [2010 z Sonau Ram Bhakt PETITIONER: S/ o Late Shri Tunu Ram Bhakt, x“ WQA/y Wu G}, Aged about 71 years, Retired Head Master, R/o Village 85 Post Kusmul, Tahsil Dabhra, District Janjgir—Champa (C.G.) VERSUS r/ 1. State of Chhattisgarh Through 2 The Secretary, School Education Department D.K.S. Bhawan, Raipur (C.G.) 2./ The Joint Director Treasury Account and. Pension Bilaspur Division Bilaspur, (C.G.) 3. The District Education Officer, Janjgir District Janjgir—Charnpa (co) 4. “The Block Education Officer, Block Malkharouda, District Jan‘jgir—Champa (C.G.) WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA FOR ISSUANCE OF WRIT IN NATURE OF MANDAMUS CERTIORARY OR ANY W THER WRIT OF LIKE NATURE ETC. The petitioner most humbly and respectfully begs to su‘bmit as under : wyn J @E HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT RH AS PI IR WRIT PETITION (S) No. 2060 0f2010 ‘ PETIHONER : Sonau Ram Bhakt. VERSUS RESPONDENTS : State of Chllattisgarh & Others. WRIT PETITION UN DER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA SB: Htm’kk Shz'i Sailsh K. Agruihi‘gri, J. Present: Sim Shani Ram Patel, Advocate for tha petitioner, 'hri AV‘ Shridhar, Page} Lawym“ for tlm Sims/respondems. OWER (ORAL) a. 1', (PaSsad on 30m day of Aprii 2010) Leamed caunssl appearing for thr: petiticmer submits that without affording any opportunity 0f hearing, a sum of Rs. 2.13,S62/— as alkgsdly being excass payment, has been recovered from the retiral dueS ofthe petitioner which is evident from the challan dated 02.11.2004 (Armexure P/Z'). Shri Pate} further submits the issue asto Whether recoveiy of excess payment for no fault of the employee can be made without following the principles of natural justice is no longer res integra. The same has heen settled by Hon’hle Supreme Court in various decisions (See Syea' Abdtd Qmiir emf giilers v. Smte of Biimr and athersz). This Court, relying on the above decisions has passed several orilers, directing refund ofihe amount if any, recovered from the employees, Where the empioyees were not given any opyortunity to exglain about the excess payment, if any, made to them. shit Patei further contends that any recovery from retiral dues can be made only in case if there was any misrepresentation or fraud on the part ofthe employee and the employee had knowledge that the payment was received in excess. The error, if any, could have been corrected Within a short span of time from wrong payment. r 1 (2009) 3 SCC‘ 475 r*"*r‘*"yl’ " if, iii ‘Ii Clf K) 3111i Shridhar, learneci Panel Lawyer appearing for tlw State/ respondehts submits that amass payment was not mada on account of any misrepresentation 01‘ fraud committed by the petitioner. Admittediyg this was a ease of misconstruction of the provisions of wrong fixation of salary. He further submits that the similar order may be passed, subject to verification of facts. This Court, as well as Hon’ble Supreme Court; in a catena of decisions, time and again reiterated that no recovery of excess payment for no fault of the employee can be made without following the principles of natural justice. This Court in Ramclmridm Kwmp v. State of CG. & others: and other connected matters, decided on 23m November, 2009, obsewed as under: “l9. A common thread running into the above decisions of the Supreme Court is that, for recovery of excess payment of emoluments/allowances, there are three conditions wherein the excess payment may be recovered, namely (i) excess payment was made on account of misrepresentation or fraud on the part of the employee, (ii) the employee had knowledge that the a payment received was in excess, and (iii) the error was corrected within a short span of time of wrong payment .......... ” in view of the foregoing, the respondent authorities are directed to refund back the amount of Rs. 2,13,862/- to the petitioner. However, liberty is reserved to the State/respondents that if the excess payment has been made on account of misrepresentation or fraud on the part of the employee, or the employee had the knowledge that the payment received by his was in excess, fresh orders may be issued on verification of the facts, after affording opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. The writ petition is accordingly disposed of No order asto costs Sd/- Satish K. Agnihotri Judge *1 W.P:(S) No. 3563 of2009