mym 2‘. C/K: myf Q w‘y‘i THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR w.p.(S)No. §§Z— /2o11 PETITIONER /": Rohini Kumar Shukla S/o Late Shri Kunj Lal Shukla, Aged about 66 Years, R/o Village 8a Post PandarBhatta, Tehsil Mugeli Distt. Bilaspur (C.G.) VERSUS RESPONDENTS 1. State of Chhattisgarh x Through — Secretary b Department of Water Resources D. K. S. Bhavan, Raipur (C.G.) / >‘2. Executive Engineer Department of Water Resources, Kharang Division, Bilaspur—(C.G.) /3. Sub Divisional Officer, Sub Division, Department of Water Resources Bilaspur—(C.G.) 4. The Joint Director, Treasury Accounts and Pension, Bilaspur (C.G.) Fa mgilsJ.) I h I '@ A 4? H's“ f v 'r PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE ‘CONSTITUTION OF INDIA FOR ISSUANCE OF A WRIT IN THE NATURE OF MANDAMUS PROHIBITION CERTIORARI ETC. OR ANY OTHER DIRECTION OR ORDER TO DO JUSTICE IN THE MATTER r f k PETITIONER / §> HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH I BILASPUR WRIT PETITION (S) NO. 352 OF 2011 Rohini Kumar Shukla ' Versus State of Chhattisgarh & Others (Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of india) Single Bench : Hon’bie Shri Satish K. Agnihotri, J. RESPONDENTS Shri Y.S.Thakur, Dy. Advocate General for the State. ORDER ORAL (Paseed on this 21 day of January, 201 1) Challenge in this petition is to the order dated 10.06.2009 (Annexure P/1 ), whereby a sum of Rs.17;1 29l- has been deducted from the retiral dues of the petitioner, holding it to be excess payment made to the petitioner, during the course of his service. Shri Otwani, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner retired from service on attaining the age of superannuation on 31 .01 .2006. During the course of settlement of retiral dues, a sum of Rs. 17,1291- was deducted hoiding it to be excess payment made to the petitioner during the course of his serVlce. Shri Otwani, further submits that 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 (See Syed Abdul Qadir and others v. State of Biharand others’). This Court. relying on the above decisions has passed several orders, directing refund of the amount, if any, 1 (2009) 3 soc 475 Present :- Shri Sunil Otwani, Advocate for the petitioner. v (y 2 recovered from the employees, where the employees_ were not given any opportunity to explain about the excess payment, if any, made to them. Shri Otwani, further contends that any recovery from retiral dues can be made oniy in case if there was any misrepresentation or fraud on the part of the employee and the employee had knowledge that the payment was received in excess. The error, if any, could have been corrected within a short span of time from wrong payment. Learned counsel appearing for the respondents does not dispute the above submission made by learned counsel appearing for the petitioner. However, he submits that the similar order may be passed, subject to verification of facts. This Court, as well as Hon’ble Supreme Court, in a catena of decisions, time and again reiterated that no recovery of excess payment for no fault of the employee can be 'made without following the principles of natural justice. This Court in Ramchandra Kurup v. State of C.G. & omersz and other connected matters, decided on 23'“ NOVember, 2009, observed as unden "19. A common thread running into the above decisions of the Supreme Court is that, for v recovery of excess payment of emoluments/ allowances, there are three conditions wherein the excess payment may be recovered, namely n) excess payment was made on account of misrepresentation or fraud on the pert of the empioyee, (ii) the employee had knowledge that the payment received was in excess, and mi) the error was corrected within a short span of time of wrong payment.......... " 2 w.P.(S) No. 3663 of 2009 In view of foregoing, the impugned order dated 10.06.2009 (Annexure P/1) directing recovery Rs.17,129/- on account of excess payment made to the petitioner, is hereby quashed. if the amount has already been recovered, the petitioner is entitied to the said amount with interest at the rate of 6% per annum, subject to verification of facts. However, liberty is reserved to the State/respondents that if the excess pawnent has been made on account of misrepresentation or fraud on the part 'of the employee, or the empioyee had the knowledge that the payment received by him was in excess, fresh orders may be issued on vermcation of the facts, after affording opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of. No order asto costs. ashok Sd/—' Satish K. Agnihotri Judge