IN THE HON'LBEL HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR W. P. (S) No. ^f^D /2011 PETITIONER lukru Prasad Soni S/o Shri Pheruram Soni, aged about- 66 years, Retd. Assistant Teacher, Village .Somni District- Rajnandgaon (C.G.) Versus RESPONDENTS ^^^: 1. ,^ w?--- , ^•" -rf \ v--' ^s-^py^- '.-y State of Chhattisgarh, Through:- The Secretary, Education Department, D.K.S. Bhawan Raipur, Distt.- Raipur 2. ^ District Education Officer, Rajnandgaon, District- Rajnandgaon (C.G.) 3. <<Principal, Government Higher Secondary School, Somni, District- Rajnandgaon (C.G.) 4..-^' Treasury Officer, Rajnandgaon District- Rajnandgaon (C.G.) WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE_CC>NSTITU_TION OFINDIA. The above named Petitioners respectfully submit as under:- 1. PARTICULARS OF PETITIONER As mentioned in the cause title. 2. PARTICULARS OF RESPONDENTS As mentioned in the cause title, 3. PARTICULARS ABOUT THE ORDER AGAINST W^HICH_THE PETITION ISBEINGMADE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH : BILASPUR WRIT PETITION (S) N0. 770 OF 2011 PETITIONER Thukru Prasad Soni RESPONDENT Versus State of Chhattisgarh & Others (Writ Petition underArticle 226 ofthe Constitution of India) Single Bench : Hon'ble Shri Satish K. Agnihotri, J. Present:- Shri Basant Dewangan, Advocate for the petitioner. Shri Ajit Singh, Panel Lawyer for the State. ORDER ^ORAL) (Passed on this 28th day of February, 2011) 1. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. The petitioner, while working as Assistant Teacher, retired from service on 30.4.2006 on attaining the age ofsuperannuation. The petitioner is aggrieved by the order Annexure - P/2, whereunder a sum of ? 34,136/- has been directed to be deducted from the pensionary benefits, holding it to be excess payment made to the petitioner during the course of his service. 3. According to the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, the impugned recovery has been made without affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, and further, the issue asto whether recovery of excess payment can be made without following principles of natural justice is no longer res integra, the same has been settled by the Supreme Court in the matter of Sahib Ram v. State of Haryana and others , and further followed by this Court in the matter of Vidyadhar Tiwari v. The State of Chhattisgarh & Others and Vidya Shankar Tiwari v. Sfafe of M.P. (Now State of Chhattisgarh) and others and thereafter fotlowed in several decisions. 1 1995Supp(1)SCC 18 BB ,^Ssf~"'a«(a.> ^-^^t lesel 1^^^' 4. Gowri 7. This Court in Ramchandra Kurup v. State of C.G. & Others and other connected matters, observed as under: "19. A common thread running into the above decisions of the 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 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......" Despite granting time, no return has been filed by the State. Learned counsel appearing for the State/respondents does not controveri: the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioner and submits that this matter may be disposed of in the same terms. In view of the foregoing and as admitted by learned counsel appearing for the parties, this petition is disposed of in the terms of the order passed in the case of Ramchandra Kurup . i.e. the impugned order regarding recovery of amount of ? 34,136/- from the retrial dues of the petitioner on account of excess payment, is hereby quashed. The petitioner is entitled to full pensionary benefits/gratuity amount without any deduction. If the amount has been recovered, the petitioner js entitled to the said amount. However, it is open to the respondents to take recourse to Rule 65 of the Chhattisgarh Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1976, if so advised, in accordance with law, after following basic principles of natural justice. Sd/- Sarish K.AgniKotri Judge 2010(3)CGLJ400