t - •IM; c^i^"7- ^ IN THE HON»BLEHIGH COURT OF CHHAmSGARH ATBILASPUR W.P.(S^ N0. S 9^y /2010 PETITIONER ^ .^%> ^y ;^: ^t^ ^''..^'y ^'..^' ^ RESPQNDENTS ^^ Y.V\^ ^ Bartan Ram, S/o Late Shri Ghastu Ram, aged about 63 years, retired peon, R/o Village Gadla, P.0. Chongaribahar, Distt. Jashpxir (C.G.) VERSUS /: 1. State of Chhattisgarh Through :- The Secretaiy, Tribal Welfare Department, D.K.S. Bhawan,Raipur (C.G.) 2. Treasury Officer, Treasury Account & Pension, Jashpur (C.G.) ^3. The Principal Govt. Higher Secondary School, Dokra, Block- Kansabel, Distt. Jashpur (C.G.) 4. Assistant Coinmissioner Tribal Welfare Department Jashpur, Distt. Jashpur (C.G.) 6 WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA. B TT^., HIGHCOURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WRIT PETITION (8) No. 374 of2010 PETITIONER : BartanRam. VERSUS RE8PONDENTS : State ofChhattisgarh & Ofhers. ^\ WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CON8TITUTION OF INDI SB: Hon'ble Shri Satish K. Agnihotri, J. Present: Shri Somkant Verma, Advocate for the petitioner. Shri Alok Bakshi, Govenmient Advocate forthe State/respondents. ORDER(ORAD (Passed on 25m day of March, 2010) With the consent ofleamed counsel appearmg for the parties, the matter is heard finally. 1. Challenge in this petition is to the order dated 06.11.2009 (Annexure P/4) whereby the petitioner was directed to deposit a sum of Rs. 41710/- holding it to be excess payment niade to him during the course of his service, for scttling his retiral dues and other pensionary benefits. 2. Leamed counsel appearing for the petitioner subinite that the petitioner, working as Peon, retired j&om service on attaining fhe age of superannuation on 31.05.2009 (Annexure P/l). The petitioner received a communication dated 06,11.2009 (Aimexure P/4) issued by the respondent authorities whereby the petitioner has been directed to deposit a sum ofRs. 41710/- holding it to be excess payment made to the petitioner, during the course ofhis ser^ice. 3. Leamed counsel further submits that the issue asto whether recovery of excess payment for no fault of the employee can be made wifhout following the principles of natural justice is no longer res integra. The same has been settled by Hon'ble Supreme Court in various decisions. Thus, no recovery can be made after retirement of the petitioner from scrvice. 4. On the other hand, leamed counsel appearing for the State/respondents submits that in the present case, the petitioner was fully aware of the fact that the payment that has been received by the petitioner, was in excess. The petitioner has fxirther given an undertaking that the excess amount may be recovered from his DPF account. Further., the petitioner was aware that on account of wrong fixation of pay., the petitioner has been paid excess 6. ^ amount ofRs. 41710/- (Aimexure R/l). Thus, the petitioner is not entitled to any relief^ as claimed for in this petition. This Court, as well as Hon'ble Supreme Court, in a catena ofdecisions, time and again reiterated that no recovery ofexcess payment for no fault of the employee can be made without following the prmciples of natural justice- Thiss Court in Ramchandra Kwup v. State ofC.G. & others1 and other connected matters, decided on 23rd November, 20095 observed as under: "19. A common thread mnning into tfie above decisions of thc Supreme Cowt is that, for recovery of excess payment of emoluments/allowances, there are three conditions wherein thc ©xcess payment may be recovered, namely (i) excess payment was made cn account of misrepresentation or fraud on the part of the employee, (ii) the employee had knowledge that the payment received was in excess, and (iii) the error was corrected within a short span of time of wrong payment.........." Admittedly, the petitioner was aware that whatever amount of salary he has received, was in excess to what he should have actually received. The petitioner was also given proper notice and further, the petitioner has also given an undertaking that the excess amount may be recovered from his DPF account. Thus, at this stage, the petitioner may not be peimitted to agitate the issue ofrecovery ofexcess payment hi view ofthe above, the writ petition, being devoid ofmerit, is dismissed at the motion stage itself. Sd/- Satish K. Agnihotri Judge Amit lW.P.(S)No. 3663 of 2009