YN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE 90F CHHATTISGARH. AT BILASPUR w.P.(s.)No. %Oé 12009 / PETITIONER: Chamm Prasad Sahu S/ o Shri Deo Singh Sahu, Aged about 66 years, Occupation : Retired Assistant Teasher, R/o Village Karumauha, Post Basnajhar Via: Kharsia, District Raigarh (C.G.) VERSUS PNDENT /1. State of Chhattisgarh Through : The Secretary, School Education Department D‘Ks. Bhawan, Raipur (Coot) /2. The Joint Director Treasury Account and Pension Bi1aspur Division Biiaspur, (co) /3. The District Education Officer v Raigarh, District Raigarh (co) The Block Education Officer, Kharsia, District Raigarh (C.G.) WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF 1NDLA FOR ISSUANCE OF WRIT IN NATURE OF MANDAMUS CERTIORARY OR ANY OTHER WRIT OF LIKE NATURE ETC. The petitioner most humbiy and respectfully begs to submit as under : M RESOS , HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WRIT PETITION (S) No. 7506 0f2009 PETITIONER : Channu Prasad Sahu. RESPONDENTS : State ofChhattisgarh & Others. WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 22o OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA \M SB: Hon’bie Shri Satish K. Agnihotri J. Present: Shri Manoj Jaiswal, Advocate for the petitioner. VERSUS \\: \ / \\ Shri P.K.Bhaduri, Panel Lawyer for the State/fespondents. ORAL ORDER {Passed on ()4 day of Jammy, 20 10) With the consent of leamed coumel appearing for the panies, the petition is heard finally The petitioner, working aS Assistant Teacher, retired from service on attaining the age of superannuation on 28.02.2009 from the office of Biock Education Otficer, Kharsiya, District Raigarh. Chalienge in this petition is to the order dated 11.05.2006 (Annexure P/l), whereby a sum of Rs. 17,21 4/- has been ordered to'be deducted from the retiral dues holding it to be excess payment made to the petitioner during the course ofhis service. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was not given any opportunity‘to explain about the payment made to him. Thus, the impugned order is Vitiated for want of compliance ofthe principles of natural justice and fair play in action. Learned counsel further submits that there is no fauit on the part of the petitioner and the amount was paid to him in accordance with the pay scales, revised and fixed by the respondents from time to time. The respondents cannot recover the amount, already paid to the petitioner Without following the \ principles ofnatural justice. \9 \ \ l (2009) 3 SCC 475 \ . ‘ Learned counsel appearing for the respondents submits that ifthe excess payment was made to the petitioner, the same can be recovered at the time of settlement ofretiral dues. The issue asto whether recovery 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 been settled by Hon’ble Supreme Court in various decisions. In SyedAb'dui Qadz'r and others vs. State of Bihar and others1, Hon’ble Three Judges of the Supreme Court, having considered all the aspects of the matter and the decisions rendered by the Supreme Court in the ast, observed as under: q/O “57. This Coult, in a catena of decisions, has granted relief against recovery of excess payment of emoluments/allowances if (a) the excess amount was not paid on account of any misrepresentation or fraud on the part ofthe 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 employees, but in equityl exercising judicial discretion to relieve the employees from the hardship that will be caused if recovery 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 shert time ofwrong payment, the matter being in the realm of judicial discretion, courts may, on the facts and circumstances of any particular case, order for recovery ofthe amount paid in excess. See Sahib Ram V. State of Haryana, Shyam Balm Verma v. Union of India, Union of hidia V. M. Bhaskar, V. Gangaram v. Director, Col. B.J.Akkara (Retd.) v. Govt. of India, Purshottam Lal Das v.‘ State of Bihar, Punjab National Bank v. Manjeet Singh and Bihar SEE v. Bijay Bhadur.” Ml [W 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 ofthe employee can be made without following the principles ofnatural p justice. This Court in Ramchandm Kump Vs. Stare ofC.G. & orherf and other connected matters, decided on 23rd November, 2009, observed as untier: “19. A common thread mnning into the above of decisions excess of payment the Supreme of emoluments/allowances, Court is that, for recovery there be are recovered, three conditions namely wherein (i) excess the excess payment payment was made may 011 accouiit of misrepresemation or tiraud on the pmt that of the the employee, payment received (ii) the was employee in excess, had and knowledge (iii) the enor was corrected within a short span of time of wrong payment ......... " In View of the forgoing, the petition is allowed. The impugned order dated 11.05.2006 (Annexure P/l), directing recoveiy of Rs. 17,2 l4/- on account of excess payment made to the petitioner, is hereby quashed. If the amount has already been recovered, the petitioner is entitled to the said amount with interest at the rate of 6% per annum, subject to verification of facts. No order asto costs. l/MM V 1"&‘;_L_ , «l, satish K. Sdj‘ Agnlho - triii Judge K 9 W.P.(S) No. 3663 of 2009 .