i w m; 7M€§i§ 3§%EH BEFORE THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR (CHHATTISGARH! w.P. (S) No. ”5%! of 2010 CONSTITUTION OF INDIA FOR ISSUANCE OF WRIT OR MANDAMUS z DIRECTION OF OTHER APPROPRIATE WRIT. M. PETITIONER : grat Singh Ojha, S/o Gopinath Qf/w, \%0P$u%h //Ojha, Ambedkar aged about Ward, 64 Near years, Shlv @gqiola' Mandir, Jagdalpur, Distt. Bastar %w¢$%’ (c.G.) V w VERSUS y// V RESPONDENTS V 1) State of Chhattisgarh Through—The Secretaly, Tribal Welfare Department, D.K.S. Bhawan Raipur, Distt. Raipur (C.G’.) 2) Joint Director, Kosh, Lekha and Pensigh" ,x’ Jagdalpur, Distt. Jagdalpur (C.G.) Block Education Officer, Bakwand, District Bastar (C.G.) WRIT' PETITION UNDER HIGH COUKT‘OF CHHATI‘ISGARH AT BILASPUR WRIT PETITION ($) ‘No‘. 3591 of2010 WRIT PEI‘l’l‘ION UNDER AR'l‘ICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA SB: Hon’ble bhn Satish K. Agnihotri, J. Present: Shri Ajav Shrivastava. Advocate for the petitioner. - Shri RKZBhaduri, Panél Lawyer for the State/respondents. ORDER (ORAL (Passed on 04 ‘day 0f February, 2011) The petitioner, while working as» Assistant 'l‘eacher, retired from service on 30.06.2008 on attaining the age of superannuation. The petitioner is aggieved by the order dated 12.01.2010, whereunder a sum of Rs. 2,34,658/- has been directed to be deducted mm his pensionary beneiits, holding it to be excess payment made to the petitioner during the course of his service. 2. According to the learned counsel apyearing for the petitioner, the impugied recovery has been made without ah‘ording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, and further, the issue asto whether recovery of excess payment can be made without following principles ofnatural justice is no longer res integra, the sarne‘has been settled by the Supreme Court in the matter of Sahib Ram “State ofHaryana and others‘, and fmther followed by this Court in the matter of Vidyadhar Tiwan' v. The State 0f Chhattisgarh & Other? and, Vidya Shankar Tiwari v. State ofMP. Wow State ofChhattisgark) and others} and thereafter followed in several decisions. 1 19% Supp (1) soc 18 3 2006 (2) MPHT 31 (CG) 2 2006 (1) MPHT 105 (CG) PE'l'i'HONER Bharat Singh Ojha. VERSUS RESPONDENI‘S State ofChhattisgarh & Others. f4 w This CourrimRamchandra Kump v. State ofC.G. & Others" and other connected matters, observed as under : “l9. A common thread running into the above decisians afthe Supreme Court is that, for recovery of excess payment of emoluments/allowances, there are three conditions wherein the excess payment may be recovered, namely (i) excess payment was made on account ofmisrepreeentation or fraud on the part of the employee, (ii) the empioyee had knowledge that the payment received was in excess and (iii) the error was corrected wmun a Sher“: span of time of wrong payment...... " Learned couneel appearing, for the State/respondents does not controvert the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioner and submits that this matter may be disposed of in the same 1.6mS. In View of the foregoing and as admitted by learned counsel appearing for the parties, this petition is disposed ofin the terms of the order passed in the case of Ramchcmdra Kump". Le. the impugned order dated 12.01.2010 regarding recovery ofamount of Rs. 2,34,658/- from the retrial dues ofthe petitioner on account of eXcess payment, is hereby quashed. The petitioner is entitled to full pensionary benefits/gratuity amount without any deduction. Ifthe amount has been recovered, the petitioner is entitled to the said amount with interest at the rate of6% per annurn. However, it is open to the respondents to take recourse to Rule 65 of the Chhattisgarh Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1976, if do advised, in accordance with law, after following basic principles of natural justice. 1t is further made clear that in the event before recovery ofthe alleged excess payment was made, a show cause notice was issued and reply was tiled by the petitioner to the same, the case of the petitioner may not be treated to be covered by the decision ofthis Courtn‘ Ramchandra Kump". / Sd/- ‘ Satish K. Agnihotri 4 2010 (3) CGLJ 400 Judge