c^ l<Sr-<S~ ^ IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHAmSGARH AT BILASPUR W^P^(S)Np^Z3y^ OF^Oll. PETITIONER 4W-<MV \-^-\ . ,'f "l.yf\. <-i ^. ;rf-~ RESPONDENTS Ram Gulal Patel, S/o. late Shri Brijlal Patel, aged about 67 years, Retired Head Master, R/o. Village 85 Post Chararaa, Block Charama, District Kanker (C.G.). V E RS U S :1. State of Chhattisgarh, Through : The Secretary, Tribal Welfare Department, D.K.S. Bhawan, Raipur (C. G.) ,2. Block Education Officer, Charama, Block Charama, District Kanker (C.G.) WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION QFINDIA The petitioner named above begs to submit as under:- /. ^'^.^ 1. PARTICULARS OF THE PETITIONER: As given in the above cause title. ndfflFTi'HE'inai 'y "y^:^ __.._._^.J2L._ ^ .HjGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BiLASPUR WRIT PETiTiON (S) No. 2343 ot' 2011 PETITIONER IRam Guial Patei VERSUS RESPONDENTS fTh'e State of Chhattisgarh & another <A?R!T PETITiON UNDER ARTiCLE 226/227 OF THE CONSTITUT!ON OF INDiA 'bie Shri Satish K. Aanihotri, J. Present: Shri Somkani Verma, Advocate for the petitioner. Shri Sushil Dubey, G.A. forthe State/respondents. 2. (Passed on 2nd day of May, 2011) Sv thls petition, the petitloner seeks a direction to the respondents to refund the amount of Rs. 31,903/- to the petltloner and to grant consequentiai relief of payment of retlral dues pension etc. without deduction. Shri Verma, learned counsei appearing Torthe petitioner submits that the petitioner, whlie working as Head Master, retired on attainina the age of superannuation on 31.08.2005. Shri Verma further submits that the Detitioner was directed to a'eposit an amount of Rs. 31.903/- for the aiieaed excess payment made to fhe petltioner v/ith re.gard to second kramonnati which wss deposlted by the petitloner on 21.09.2003 (Annexure P/2). According to Shri Verma, the impugned reGovery has been made without affordlng an opportunity of hearin.q to the petitioner, and further, the issue asto whether recoven/' of excess payment can be made •without foltowing principles of ns.tura! justice Is no lonaer res iniagra, the ssme has beensettied by the Supreme Court in the matter of Sahib Ram v. Stats of Haryana snd others', and further foilowed by this Court In the matter of Vidvadhar Tmari v. Ths Stata of 1995 Supp (1) SCC 1 ^ 3. 4. 5. 'iya Chhattisgarh & Qther^ and Vidya Shankar Tman v. Stat° of M.P. {Now Stats of ChhatSsgarh) and others'' and thereafter foltowed in severai decteions. This Court in Ramchandra Kurup v. Stste of C.G. Others and other connected matters, observed as under: "19. A common thrsad running into the above decisions ofthe Suprem®Court ss thaf, for reeovery of excess payment oi em&iumsnts/aMowances, there ar® thrse conditions wherein the excess payment may bs recovered, nameiy (i) sxcess payment was made on account of misrepresentation or fraud on fhe part of ths empioyee, (Ji) the empioyee had knov/iedge fhat the payment received vi?as in excess, and (iii') the error was corrected withjn a short span of time of wrong payment......" Leamed counsei appearina for the State/respondents does not controvert the submissions made by iearned counsel for the petitioner and submjts that thls matter may be disposed of in the same terms. in view of the foreaoina and as admitted by iearned counsel appearing for the parties, this petition fe disposed of in the terms of the order passed in the.case of P.8mchandra Kunap . 'i.e. ths petitioner is sntsfed to ful! pensionary benefit without anv deduction. If the amount of Rs. 31,903/- has alreadv been recovered, the petitioner is entitied to refund of the said amount However, it is open to the respondents to take recourse to Rule 65 or the Chhattisgarh Civil Servlces (Pension) Rules, 1976, ifsoadvjsed, in accordance with law, after follov/ing basic princlpies of natura! justice. ^%w Sattstt ^AS6 2.2006 (l)MPHT' 105 (CG) . 3 2006 (S)&,'[PHT 31 (CG) 4 2010 (3) CGU 400