"-n IN THE HI6H COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BILASPUR [C.6.] WRIT PETtTtON (S) N0. 7il®-S/ /2009 PETtTEONERS ^^........ ^.-»'Ma"ss ^A...--^\\' ,.*•"..." l.Panchram Bhagat S/o late Santosh ram Bhagat Aged-about 52 years, Peon, Govt. Higher secondary school, nandeli, TahsilA Distt.- Raigarh [C.6.] 2.Amrit Lal Sahu S/o Kariyaram sahu Aged-about 48 years, Peon, 6ovt. Higher secondary school, nandeli, TahsilA Distt.- Raigarh [C.6.] S.Rathram Sidar S/o Khamhari Aged- about 49 years, Peon, £ovt. Higher secondary school, nandeli, TahsilA Distt.- Raigarh [C.6.] VERSUS RESPON&ENTS l.State Of Chhattisgarh Through- Secretary, School Education bepartment, O.K.S.Bhawan, Raipur [C.6.] 2. Joint Dire'ctor, Treasuries, accounts and pension, Bilaspur [C.6.] 3. District Education Officer, Raigarh Distt.- Raigarh [C.G.] (^ 4. Principal, Govt. Higher secondary school, nandeli, TahsilA bistt.- Raigarh [C.6.] WRIT PETITION UNbER ARTTCLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUrCQN OF INblA FOR ISSUANCE OF APPROPRIATE WRIT. ORbER OR bIRECTCONS A^'^ HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILA8PUR WRTT PETmON (S) No. 705 1 of2(X)9 PETmONERS : PanchramBhagat&athers. YERSUS RESPONDENTS : State ofChhattisgarh & Otfaers. WRTT PETmON UNDER ARTECLE 226 OF THE CONSTrTUTION OF INDIA SB: Hon'ble Shri Satish K. AanihntoriL J. Present; Shri D.R.Patel, Advocatefw the petitioners. Shri N.N.Roy, faaei Lawyer fortl»State/respondeats. ORALORDER (Passed on 18ttt day of January, 2010) 1. With the consent ofthe pMti^, the inatter is heard finally. 2. Leamed eounsel appearing for the petitioners submits that vide the impugned order dated 23.09.2009 (Annexure P/2) a sum ofRs. 47,65SA Rs. 21,177/-, and Rs. 45,267/- towards e3ecess paymart made to the petitioner No. 1, 2 and 3 respectively, has been directed to be reeovered from the salary aad arrears ofthe petrtioners. Shri Patel furtfaer suhmits that Ifae punitive ordCT ofrecovay has been passed witiiout affording an opportunity of hearing to 1fae petitioi»rs. The petitioners are still coirtmumg m service. 3. Shri Patel further submits thattte issue asto wtother recovery of excess payment for no &ult ofthe employee can be made vrithoirt followmg the principles ofnaturaljustice is no longer res integra. The same tms been settled by Hon'ble Supreme Court in various deeisions (See SyedAbdul Qadir and others vs. State ofBikar and other/). This Court, relying on the above dedsions has passed several ordere, direetmg refimd of the amount, if aay, recovered from Ihe employess, where the employees were not given any opportunity to explain about the exeess payment, if any, made to them. 4. Leamed counsel appearing for the StateA'espcndeiils does not dispute the above submission made by leamed counsel appearing for the petitioner. Shri Roy furtter submits Ihat since no <yportunity ofl»aring 1(2009)3SCC475 'v^. ^?•^ was afforded before passing the impugped order, liberty may be granted to the respondent/State to takesteps for recovery ofaay excess amount afler following tiie due proeess oflaw and after aflFording an oppOTtiuaty ofhearing to the petitioners. 5. It is a trite law that no order prgudicing the nterest ofan enyloyee cai be passed without affording an opportunity ofhearing. It is not Ihe case of respondents that (yportumty of Iwaring was affordal to the petitioner, and the pressnt case is such wherein notice oftearing is to be dispensed with. 6. The Suprane Court, in Rajasfhan State Road Trcmsport Corporation & anolher v. BalMukundBairwa (2} . observed as under: "35. Any order passed in violation oflhe principles of natural justice save and except cextaan contingencies of cases, would be a nullity. In A.RAnlulcytlsas Court heM: (SCC p. 660,para 55) "55. No prejudiee need be proved for enforciag the fuadamental ri^its. Violation of a fimdamental right itself fendas the impugped action void. So also the vidation of the principtes of imtural justice readers theactanullity." 47. The purpose oflhe principles ofnataal justice is preventioa ofmiscarriage ofjustice and heace the observance Ihereofis the pragmatic requirement of fair play in actkm. (See Sawai Singh v. State of Rajasthan and Narinder Mbfwn Arya v. United India Insurance Co. Ltd.). 7. In view ofthe settled position of law on the pomt, fhe petition deserves to be and is allowed. Aecordingly, tiie impupied orderdated 23.09.2009 (Annexure P/2), directing recovery of47,655/-, Rs. 21,177/- acd Rs. 45^67/- on account of eiicess payment maSe to the petitimier No. 1, 2 and 3 respectively, is hereby quashed. If the amount has already been recovered, the petitioners are endtled to their respective anount witfa interest at the rate of 6% per amium, subject to verification of facts. However, liberty is reserved to the State/respondeuts to take any steps, ifso advised, in accordance wifh law for recovay ofexeess payment No orderasto costs. Sd/- Satish K. Agnihotri Judge (2009) 4SCC 299