^i c [^f ^ SiiiCjte ©@JT^ iW9 IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR W. P. (S) No. ^^S OF 2009. PETITIONER Lakl- ^akhan Lal Soni, S/o. Chhinta Ram Soni, aged about 64 years, R/o. Village. Sukul Dehan, P.0. Dhangaon, Distt. Rajandgaon(C.G.) RESPONDENTS f^y .^ /w VER S U S ^ 1) State Govt. of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary Education Department D.K.S. Bhawan, Raipur, District Raipur, (C. G.) ^^- 2) Divisional Joint Director, (Treasury, Account and Pension) Raipur Division Raipur (C.G.) WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA ^ HIGH COURT OP CHHATTISGARH : BILASPUR Writ Petition (S) No. 2328 of 2009 Petitioner Lakhan Lal Soni Versus Respondents State of Chhattisgarh & another WRIT PETmON UNDER ARTICLE 226 OFTHE CONSTrTUTION OF INDIA (SB: Hon'ble Shri Satish K. Agmhotri J.) Shri Somkant Verma, Advocate for the petitioner, Shri P. K. Bhaduri, Panel Lawyer for the respondents. O R D ER (OiaO (Passed onthis 22nd day ofSeptember, 2009) Heard, 1. The petitioner, wtdle workuig as Head Master in the Education Departinent, retired froin sendce on attaining the age of superannuation on 30.4.2007. After his retirement, the petitioner received the order dated 18.5.2007 (Annexure P/l), directiag recovery of a sum of Rs. 28,389/-, on account of excess payment inade to the petitioner. 2. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was not given any opportunity to explam about the payment made to the petitioner. Thus, this order is vitiated for want of compUaiice of the prmciples of natural justice aad fair play in aetion. Learned counsel fiirther submits that there is no fault on the part ofthe petitioner and the amount is paid to him ia accordaiice with the pay scales, revised and fixed by the respondents froin tiine to tiaie. No reason has been assigned asto on which count the excess payment, if any, was made. The respondents caanot recover the amount, already paid to the petitioner after his retireiaent, that too without foUowiag the principles of natural justice. rft^ 1t. Z-- -^€5 Learned counsel appearing for the respondents/ State subinits that it is true tfiat no show cause notice was given to the petltioner, The petitioner was not caUed upon to subxnit his explanation for payment of aUeged excess payment and recovery thereafter. The respondent-authoriUes have not foUowed the principles of natural justice and the iiapugned action has been taken without affordiag aii opportumty of heanng to the petitioner. The practice ofpassing order involviag ciwl consequences, without show cause notice or without affording an opportunity, is condeniued. The issue asto whether recovery of excess payment caa be made after retirement ofthe eraployee is no longer res iategra. The saine has been settled by Honyble Supreme Court in. various decisions. In Syed Abdul Qadir and others vs. State of Bihar and others1, Hon'ble Three Judges ofthe Supreme Court, having considered all the aspects of the inatter and the decisions rendered by the Suprenie Court ia the past, obser^ed as under: "57. This Court, ia a catena of decisions, has granted reUef against recoveiy of excess payment ofeinoluments/aUowances tf (a) the excess aoiount was not paid on account of aoy raisrepresentation or fi-aud on the part of the einployee, and (b) if such excess payraent was m.ade by the eiaployer by applyiag a wrong principle for calculating the pay/aUowaace or ou the basis of a particular mteipretation of rule/order, which is subsequently found to be erroneous. 58. The reUef agamst recovery is granted by courts not because ofaay right ia the einployees, but ia equity, exercisiag judicial discretion to reUeve the employees j&om the hardship that witl be caused if recovery is ordered. But, if iii a given case, it is proved that the eniployee had knowledge that the paynient received was ia excess of what was due or wrongly paid, or in cases where the eiTor is detected or coiTected within a short time ofwrong payment, the matter being ia the realm of judicial discretion, courts niay, on the facts and circuinstaaces of aay particular case, order for recovery of the amount paid in excess. See Salub Ram v. State of Haiyana, Shyam Babu 1 (2009) 3 SCC 475 '•^.A^ 6. -3 ^ Veraaa v. Urdon of India, Union of India v. M. Bhaskar, V. Gangarani v. Director, Col. B.J,Akkara (Retd,) v. Govt, of India, Purshottam Lal Das v. State of Bihar, Punjab National Bank v, Maajeet Singh aiid Bihar SEB v. Bijay Bhadur/' In view of the forgoiag, the petition is allowed. The impugned order dated 18.5.2007 (Annexure P/l), directmg recoveiy of Rs. 28,389/-, on account of excess payment made to the petitioner, is hereby quashed. The petitioner is entitled to fuU retiral benefits without aay deduction. If the amount has already been recovered, the petitioner is entitled to the said amount with interest at the rate of 6% per armuin. No order asto costs. Thakur Sd/- Satish K. Agnihotri Judge