^ HIGH_COURT.QF CHHATTISGARH ATBILASPUR PETITIONER WRIT PETITION fS) No. 6938 of2007 Ramadhar Santnami. n RESPONDENTS VERSUS Union oflndia & Others. WRIT PETITIONUNDERARTJCLE_226 QF THE CQNSTITUTION OJ WDIA SB: Hon'ble Shri Satish K. Aenihotri. J. Present: Shri Ajay Shrivastava, Advocate for the petitioner. Shri R-Pradhan, Advocate for the respondent No. 1 and 2. Shri Aditya Shanna and Shri Saurabh Sharma, Advocates for the respondent No. 3. ORDERrORAL) (Passed on 19th day ofApril, 2011) Challenge in fhis petition is to the order dated 10.07.2007 (Annexure P/l) whereby, a sum of Rs. 1,09,713/- has been directed to be recovered from the retrial dues of the petitioner, on the ground that excess payment has been made to the petitioner towards the arrears of pension in between 01.01.1986 to 31.12.1995. Shri Shrivastava, leamed counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner retired frorn service while working on fhe post ofHavaldar. According to Shri Shrivastava, the impugned recovery has been made wifhout affording an opportunity of ^- hearing to the petitioner, and farther, the issue asto whether recovery of excess payment can be made without following principles of natural justice is no longer res integra, the same has been settled by the Supreme Court in the matter of Sahib Ram v. _j State of Haryanaand others , and further followed by this Court in the matter of Vidyadhar Tiwari v. The State of Chhattisgarh & Others and Vidya Shankar Tiwari v. State of M.P. (Now State of Chhattisgarh) and others and thereafter followed in several decisions. Leamed counsel appearing for the respondent No. 1 aad 2 submits that admittedly, no show cause notice or opportunity of hearing was afforded to the petitioner before issuance of the impugned order. However, he relies on a cu'cular dated 11.01.2005 (Annexure R-2/2) wherein the Miaistry ofDefence, New Delhi. Shri Sharma, leamed counsel appearing for the respondent No. 3, submits that the respondent Bank has made payment as per letter dated 21.04.2006 (Annexure R/3-3) issued by the respondent No. 1 and 2, and no excess payment has been made by the respondent Bank to the petitioner towards arrears ofpension. On perusal ofthe circular, as aforestated, the same is with regard to the rate of recovery of excess payment/overpayment made to a retu-ed employee which provides that 1/3 ofthe net (pension plus relief), payable each month may be recovered without the sanction of fhe competent authority and without the consent of the pensioner, higher installment after obtaining the consent of the pensioner and lump sum against the arrears due to revision of pension, without the sanction of Competent Authority and without ^ the consent ofthe pensioner. It does not stipulate asto under which conditions, the excess payment, if any, made to the employee, may ' 1995 Supp (1) SCC 18 22006(1)MPHT105(CG) 32006(2)MPHT31(CG) ,.<!•» be recovered. Thus, the said circular may not be applicable to the facts ofthe case on hand. 6. This Court in Ramchandra Kurup v. State of C.G. & Others and other connected matters, observed as under: 19. A common thread running into the above decisions ofthe Supreme Court is that, for recovery of excess payment ofemoluments/allowances, there we three conditions viherein the excess payment may be recovered, namely (i) excess payment was made on account of misrepresentation or fravd on the part of the employee, (ii) the employee had knowledge that thepayment receivedivas in excess, and (iii) the error -was corrected -withm a short span oftime ofwrongpaymenl......" 7. In view of the foregoing and as admitted by leamed counsel appearing for the parties, fhis petition is disposed of in the terms of the order passed in the case of Ramchandra Kurup . i.e. the impugned order dated 10.07.2007 (Annexure P/l) regarding recovery of amount ofRs. 109713/- from the retrial dues ofthe petitioner on account ofexcess payment, is hereby quashed. Ifthe amount has been recovered, the petitioner is entitled to the said amount. 8. However, it is open to the respondents to take appropriate steps for recovery of the excess payment, if so advised, in accordance with law, after following basic principles ofnatural justice. Sd/- SatishK.Agnihotri Judge Amit 2010(3)cou400