c IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHAmSGARH AT BILASPUR W. P. (Sl No. T0??- OF 2009. PETITIONER -\' ^ „-">•''•"" ..-•-•"^ y("--;- ,......--v B&--""-?' a <- Gopal Rarn Bhagat, aged about 70 years, Son of late Shri Mangra, retired Assistant Teacher, R/o. Village Kandora, Post Bhimsila, Tahsil Manora, District Jashpur (C. G.). VERSUS RESPONDENTS 1. State of Chhattisgarh, Through : The Secretary, Tribal Welfare Departaient, D.K.S. Bhawan, Raipur (C. G.) ^ ^2. Assistant Commissioner, Tribal Welfare Department, Jashpur, District Jashpur (C. G.) 3. Joint Director, Treasury Account 85 Pension, Bilaspur, District Bilaspur (C. G.) WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA r^. r HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WKH PETITION (S) No. 7077 of2009 PETITIONER RESPONDENTS Gopal Ram Bhagat. VERSUS State ofChhattisgarh & Others. WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA SB: Hon'ble Shri Satish K. Agnihotri, J. Present: Shri Somkant Verma, Advocate for the petitioner. Shri A.V.Shridhar, Panel Lawyer for the State/respondents. ORAL ORDER (Passed on 05th day of Febmary, 2010) With the consent of leamed counsel appearing for the parties, the matter is heard finally. 1. Notices were issued to the respondents on 03.12.2009 and on the request of leamed State counsel, three weeks time was granted to file 'written. However, no reply has been filed. 2. By the present petition, the petitioner challenges the order dated 22.06.2004 (Annexure P/l) whereby a sum ofRs. 1,00,1.32/- has been ordered to be deducted from the retiral dues ofthe petitioner, holding it to be excess payment made to the petitioner, during the course of his service. 3. Shri Verma, leamed counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner, working as Assistant Teacher, retired from service on attaining the age of superamiuation on 29.02.2004. During the course of settlement of retiral dues, a sum of Rs. 1,00,132/- was ordered to be deducted holding it to be excess payment made to the petitioner during the course ofhis service. Q Shri Verma 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 SyedAbdul Qadir and others v. State ofBihar and others). This Court, relying on the above decisions has passed several orders, directing refimd of the amount, if any, recovered from the employees, where the employees were not given any opportunity to explain about the excess payment, if any, made to them. Shri Verma further contends that any recovery from retiral dues cm be made only 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, ifany, could have been corrected within a short span oftime from wrong payment. Leamed 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 offacts. 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 ofthe employee can be made without following the principles ofnatural justice. This Court in Ramchandra Kurup v. State of C.G. & others^ and other connected matters, decided on 23 November, 2009, observed as under: •i 'l "19. A common thread running into the above decisions ofthe 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 ofmisrepresentation or firaud on the part ofthe employee, (ii) the employee had knowledge that the payment received was m excess, and (iii) the error was corrected within a short span of time of wrong payment..........", 7. In view of the forgoing, the impugned order dated 22.06.2004 (Annexure P/l) directing recovery Rs. 1,00,132/- on account ofexcess payment made to the petitioner, is hereby quashed. If the amount has already been recovered, the petitioner is entitled to the said amount with interest at the rate of6% per annum, subject to verification offacts. 8. However, liberty is reserved to the State/respondents that ifthe excess payment has been made on account ofmisrepresentation or fraud on the part of the employee, or the employee had the knowledge that the paymenf received by him was in excess, fresh orders may be issued on verification of the facts, after affording opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. 9. The writ petition is accordingly disposed of. 10. No order asto costs. - . Sd/- Satish K. Agnihotri Judge Amit