'< Hei-fi^-^) ^a^c <&g) AM£^E^ p^, C-1 ni C?M IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATnSGARH^ATmLASPUR" W.P. (SINO. -3-3 jf ^2010 PETITIONER f 1ff ftetian ^yShri Gouri Shanker Sharma S/o Shri Ghurau Prasad Sharma, Aged about 61 Years, R/o Ar^ind Nagar, Bajrang Chowk, Bandwapara, Sarkanda Bilaspur, Distt. Bilaspur (C.G.) VERSUS RESPONDENTS 1. ^<L^VI(? |()-2-^o ....^......"."""^—••——*" ..s^^^ ...^.Advw^af 1 L- toC^fl.»A.R. |<-(J) \:4 Executive Engineer Department ofWater Resources, Kharang Division, Bilaspur-(C.G.) Sub Divisional Officer, Sub Division, Department of Water Resources Bilaspur-(C.G.) The Joint Director, Treasury Accounts and Pension, Bilaspur (C.G.) State of Chhattisgarh, Through Secretary, Water Resources Department, D.K.S. Bhavan, Mantralaya, Raipur (C.G.) WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA FOR ISSUANCE OF A WRIT IN THE NATURE OF MANDAMUS, PROHIBITION, CERTIORARI ETC. OR ANY OTHER, DIRECTION OR ORDER TO DO JUSTICE IN THE MATTER ___- :___....-^Q^-——--——.-— ^"WS^^ai^.W^^iB.^^^ ^^ HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH : BSLASPUR WRST PETITIQN (S) N0. 394 QF 2010 PETITIONER Gouri Shanker Sharma RESPONDENTS Versus Executive Engineer & Others. (Writ Petition underArticle 226 ofthe Constitution of india) Single Bench : Hon'bje Shri Satish K. Agnihotri, J. Present:- Shri Suni! Otwani, Advocate for.the petitioner, Shri A.V,Shridhar, Panei Lawyer, for the State, 0_RDERJORAU (Passsd on thls 03 day of May, 2010) Heard !earned counsel for the parties. 1. Chailenge in this petition Is to the order dated 12-09-2008 (Annexure P/1) whereby it has been dlrected to recover a sum of Rs.17,932/- from the petitioner, holding it to be excess payment made to the petitioner, during the course of his service. 2- Leamed counsel appearlng for the petltioner submits that the petitioner received a communication dated'12-09-2008 (Annexure P/1) Issued by the respondent authorities whereby It has been directed to recover a sum of Rs.17,932/- from the petitioner holding it to be excess payment made to the petitioner/dunng the course of his service. 3. Learned counsei further submits that the issue asto whether recovery of excess.-payment for no fauit of the empioyee can be made without fotiowing the priricipSes of natural justice is no longer res mtegra. The same has been. settied by the Supreme Court in various decisions (See Syed Abdul QadSr and olfiers v. State of >r^^.M^^^^...J^^.B^^:ase.;.;^ Y Biharand others). Thss Court, relying on the above declsion has passed severa! orders, dlrecting refund of the amount, if any, recovered from the empioyees, where the empioyees were not given any opportunity to explain about the excess payment, if any, made to them. Shri Otwani further contends that anv recovew from retiral dues can be made oniy in case if there was any misrepresentation or fraud on the part of the employee and the employee had knowiedge that the payment was received in excess. The error, if any, could have been corrected within a short span of time from wrong payment, 4. This Court, as weil as Hon'ble Supreme Court, in a catena of decisions, time and again reiterated that no recovery of excess payment for no fault of the ©mployee can be made wlthout following the principles of naturai justice. This Coyrt. in Ramckand!^ Karap v. Stefe of C.G. & othsrs 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 emoiumsnts/allowances, there are three conditions wherein the excess payment may be recovered, nam©!y (J) sxcsss payment was made on account of misrepresentation or fraud on the part of the empioyee, (ii) the employee had knowledge that the payment received was in excess, and (Jji) She error was corrected within a short" span of time of wrong payment.........." 1 (2009) 3 SCC 475 2 W.P.(S) No. 3663 of 2009 (decided on 23-11-2009) In view of the forgoing, the impugned order dated 12-09-2008 (Annexure P/1) directing recovery Rs.17,932/- on account of excess payment made to the petltioner, is hereby quashed, Jf the amount has aSready been recovered, the petitioner; is entitled to the said amount with interest at the rate of 6% per annum, subject to verificatlon of facts. However, Siberty is reserved to the State/respondents that ifthe excess payment has been made on account of misrepresentation or fraud on the part of the employee, or the empioyee had the knowledge that the payment received by his was in excess, fresh orders may be issued on verification of the facts, after affordsng opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. The writ petition ss accordingly disposed of. No order asto costs. Ashok Sd/- Satish K. Agnihotri Judge