IN.THE HIGH.COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR W. P.SNO. 4^ /29e9 ^°( (T^_ PETITIONER RESPONDENTS - -/ ./: ^ Smt. Priyawanti Rai, W/o Late Shri D.G. Rai, aged about 64 years^ R/o Bharapara, Pendra, Thana " Pendra, Tahsil Pendra, District Bllaspur, (C.G.). VERSUS 1. The State of Chhattisgarh, Trough Secretary, Departaient of School Education, D.K.S. Bhavan, Raipur, (C.G.). 2. The Commissioner, Tribal Welfare Department, Pendra, District - Bilaspur, 3. The Block Education Officer, Pendra, Bilaspi}r,(C.G.)., 4. ;The. Joint DIreetor, IFunds, Account and Pension, Bilaspur, District - Bilaspur, (C.G.). • .- • 5. Accountant General ^Raipur Fund No. 5, Pandri, Pagariya. Complex, Raipur, WRH:PETmONUNBEjlARTICLE,226/227 OF THE CQNSTITUTION OF INDIA. •'"^tt i; li. 3) PETSTIONER RESPONDENTS HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH : BILASPUR WRIT PETITJON (S) N0.48 OF 2010 Smt. Priyawanti Ral Versus The State of Chhattisgarh & Others (Writ Petition under Article 226/227 ofthe Constitution of tndia) Single Bench : Hon'ble Shri Satish K. Agnihotri, J. Present:- Ms. Renu Kochar. Advocate for the petjtioner. Shri Satish Gupta, Qovernment Advocate for the Slate. Shrs teshifShateeS, ^tvocate for the respondent No.5. 1. QBOEBJtQBAU (Passed on thjs 28 day of March, 2011) Challenge in this petition is to the order dated 05iW12QOQ (Annexure P/1) and 04/12/2009 (Ann^cure P/5) whereby the petitioner was directed to deposit an amount of Rs.3,85,7^/- holding J? it to be payment made to the petitioner on account of wrong calculation. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner while working as Assistant Teacher retired from service on 30/06/2007 on attaining the age ofsuperannuation. After retirement ofthe petitloner, by order dated 05/01/2009 (Annexure P/1), the respondentauthorities directed the petitloner to deposrt an amount of Rs.3,85,768/- to which the petjtionersubmitted her reply. When no action has been taken by the respondent authorities, the petjtioner preferred a writ petition being W.P.(S) No.2870/2009 (Smt Piiyewati Rai v. State of Chhattisgsifi & Others) before this Court, which was dlsposed of on 10th September, 2009 with a direction to fte Block Education Officer, Pendra to pass a fresh order, in accordance with law. Thereafter, the petitioner submitted a representation fcSMBfore frie respondent authority, which was rejected. Thus, this petition. 4 ^^ Shri Gupta, iearned Govemment Advocate appearing for the State submits that though thepetitioner was never given any nofice before retirement, however, on retirement while directing tiie recovery of excess payment, a notice was given which was properiy responded by the petitioner, This Court in RamdiaiKifa Kunjp v. State of C.G. & 0<hers and other connected matters, observed as under: "19. A common thread running into the above decjsions of the Supreme Court is that, for recpvery of excess payment of emoluments/allowances, th@re are three conditions wherein the excess payment may be recovered, namely (i) excess payment was macte on account of misrepresenfation or fraud on the part of the employee, (si) the employee had knowiedge that the payment received was in excess, and (iii) the error was corrected wifihin a short span of time of wrong payment......" In view of foregoing and as admitted by Jearned counsel appearing for the parties, this petition is disposed of in the terms of the order passed ir\ Ramchsndra Kunip1. le. the impugnedorder 05/01/2069 (Annexure P/1) and 04/12/20C®(Annexure P/5) regarding recovery proceedings on aecount of excess payment, is hereby quashed. If the amount has been recovered, the petitioner is entitled to ttie said amount. However, it is open to the respondents to take recouree, if so advised; in accordance with law, afi:er followsng basic prjnciples of naturaljustice. 1 Sd/- SatishK.Agnihotn Judge Arun 1 2010 (3)CGLJ 400