s^ c^ IN THE HON'LBEL HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR W. P. (S) No. & /2011 PETITIONER { •2^-"'r^ ^^^^ .^•^^•^ ^'^^>"" ^'•-s^" RESPONDENTS Derha Ram Manikpuri S/o Shri Vishramdas Manikpuri aged about- 65 years, Retd. Upper Division Teacher, Village - Usribod, P.0. Block - Rajnandgaon, District- Rajnandgaon (C.G.) Versus State of Chhattisgarh, Through:- The Secretary, Education Department, D.K.S. Bhawan Raipur, Distt.- Raipur District Education Officer, Rajnandgaon, District- Rajnandgaon (C.G.) Block Education Officer, .Rajnandgaon, District- Rajnandgaon (C.G.) Treasury Officer, Rajnandgaon District- Rajnandgaon (C.G.) W_RrTPET!TK)N UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA. The above named Petitioners respectfully submit as under:- 1. PARTICULARS OF PETITIONER 2. As mentioned in the cause title. PARTICULARS OF RESPONDENTS .- \^ HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BiLASPUR WRIT PETITION (S) No. 64 of 2011 PETITiONER : Derha Ram Manlkpuri. VERSUS RESPONDENTS State of Chhattisgarh & Others. VVRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTiON OF INDIA SB: Hon'ble Shri Satish K. Aanihotri. J. Present: Shri Basant Dewangan, Advocate for the petitioner. Shri Y.S.Thakur, Deputy Advocate General with Shri N.N.Roy, Panel Lawyerforthe State/respondents. ORDER (ORAU (Passedon02"ddayof February, 2011) 1. The petitioner, while working as Head Master, retired from sen/ice on 30.11.2007 on attaining the age of superannuation. The petitioner is aggrieved by the order dated 28.11.2007, whereunder a sum of Rs. 31,943/- has been deducted from his pensionary benefits, holding it to be excess payment made to the petitioner during the course of his sen/ice. 2. 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 ionger 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 fQilowed by this Court in the matter of Vidyadhar Tiwari v. The State of Chhattisgarh & Other^ and Vidya Shankar Tiwah v. State of M.P. (Now State of Chhattisgarh) and others and thereafter followed in severai decisions. 3. This Court in Ramchandra Kurup v. State ofC.G. & Others and other connected matters, observed as under: '1995Supp(l)SCC18 22006(l)MPHT105(CG) 32006(2WIPHT31(CG) 43010(3)CGLJ400 1MB ;*-"«%» /r ^ 3L ,i? 'B '^ '7 "19. A common thread running into the above decisions of the Supreme Court is that, for recovery of excess payment of emolLiments/aliowances, 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 knowtedge that the payment received was In excess, and (iii) the error was corrected a short span of time of wrong 4. Leanred counse! appearing for the State/respondents does not controvert the submissions made by iearned counsei for the petitloner and submits that this matter may be disposed of in the same terms. 5. 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 dated 28.11.2007 regarding recovery of amount of Rs. 31,943/- from the gratuity and other 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 is entitted to the said amount with interest at the rate of 6% per annum. 6. However, it is open io the respondents to take recourse to Rule 65 of ihe-Chhattisgarh Civil Services (Pension) Rutes, 1976, If so advised, in accordance with law, after following basic principies of natural justice. It is further made clear that in the event before recovery of the alleged excess payment was made, a show cause notice was issued and repiy was filed by the petitioner to the same, the case of the petitioner may not be treated to be covered by the decision of this C-ourt sn Ramchandra Kurup . Gowri Sd/- Satish K. Agnihotri Judge i. 1 B 8