AT BILASPUR w. P. (s ) No. Gtxkxék / zoos Pefi‘rioner' Versus R'esponden’rs 2 The. Dismu Education Officer, Dish». Bilaspur-(C.G.) The Block Educa‘h'on Officer, _ LBlock - Kofa, Disfm’c’r Bilaspur—(C.6.) 663:52‘9 L Dur'ga Singh Bafs S/o La’re Shri Sewak Singh, Aged abouT 62 year‘s, Retired as Head Masfer from Government D.K.P.Hi9her Secondary School, Kofa, Disf’r. Bilaspur-(C.G.), presem‘ly residing af 27 Kholi, Vikas Nagar, Near Sunny General Sfore, Bilaspur- (C.G.) IN THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF CHHATUSGARH *“S‘Ta‘fe of Chhaffisgarh,Through — The Secrefar'y Depar‘rmenf of Educafibn, D.K.S. Bhawan, Raipur, Dis’r : Raipur-(C.G.) . w 4. V The Principal, GOVT. D.K.P.Higher Secondary School, Ko‘ra Dis’rf. Bilaspur—(C.G.) Treasury Aceoun'rs and Pension, 5. f The Divisional JoinT Direc‘lor,) Bilaspur-(C.G-) (h l \ N WRIT PEHTION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION m OF INDIA FOR ISSUANCE OF SUITABLE WRIT WRITS DIRECTION ETC TO DO JUSTICE IN THE MATTER. M @v HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR (Hon. Mr. Justice Pritinker Diwaker) Writ Petition (S) No. 6442 of 2008 PETITIONER Durga Singh Bais VERSUS RESPONDENTS State of Chhattisgarh and others Shri Anil Singh Rajput, counsel for the petitioner. Shri A.V. Shridhar PL for the respondents. WRIT PETITIONS UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA ORDER (15.12.2011) Challenge in this petition is to the orders dated 3.10.2008 (Annexure P-1) and 4.11.2008 (Annexure P-2) by which recovery of excess amount of Rs. 37,466 paid to the petitioner is being sought from him alleging that the same was paid by the respondents on account of mis-calculation and that the petitioner had already withdrawn part of the said amount from his GPF at an earlier point oftime. 2. Facts of the case in brief are that the petitioner, who at the relevant time was working as Head Master in the School Education Department, retired from service on 31.3.2008. His further case is that all of a sudden recovery of Rs. 37,466 paid to him on account of miscalculation on the part of the respondents, is sought to be made from him. 3. Counsel for the petitioner submits that after retirement of the petitioner from service, the respondents are seeking to make recovery of the excess amount paid to the petitioner which undisputedly has not been received by him by way of misrepresentation or fraud on his part ’rather it was on account of voluntary action of the respondents/authorities and thus the recovery sought for by the respondents cannot be made without affording an opportunity of ‘ hearing to him. According to him, the petitioner is a retired employee CW 1M \ i xi ‘ I ,2- and thus the sudden recovery being sought from him would be too harsh as the excess amount received by him might have been spent in his day to day needs‘ He submits that the issue as to whether recovery of the excess payment for no fault of the empioyee can be made without complying with the principle of natural justice is no longer res integra and the same has been settled by the Supreme Court in various cases including the case in the matter of Syed Abdul Qadir and oths v. State of Bihar and others reported in (009) 3 SCC 475 and relying on that judgment various orders have been passed by this Court directing refud of the excess amount if any recovered from the f elo mpyees. 4. Counsel for the respondents submits that as the petitione was not entitle for the excess amount paid to him, respondents are justified ,in making recovery of the same. He however fairly submits that no opportunity of haring s granted to the petitioner before passing the impugned order and that there was no misrepresentation or fraud on the part of te petitioner as a result of which any excess mount was h a paid to him. 5. In view of the foregoing factual and legal position, the orders impugned dated 3.10.2008 (AnneXure P-1) and 4.1 1 .2008 nnexure P— 2) directing recovery of excess paymen made to him are quashed. Needless to say that the respondents can always take recourse to Rule ' 65 of the Chhattisgarh Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1976 f so - i advised in accordance with law after following basic prinCiples of natural justice. 6. Resultantly, the petition succeeds. “a Sd/- Pritinker Diwaker . Judge er 2 n r d e wa (A t H