c/ww ®@ Single Bench IN THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTIsGARH AT BILAsPUR w. P. (s) No. QHW of 2011 / PETITIONER : Shivanand Mishr‘a, aged abou’r 62 I ¥ / years, S/o Vyasnarayan Mishr'a,§ Refir'ed {Assistanf Clerk, R/o. Village ‘Mohline, Post Temr‘i, Tahsil Bemefur‘i, Disf‘r. Dur'g‘ "(C.G.) VERSUS Res‘PONDENTs :1. /Sfa’re of Chhm‘fisgar‘h Through : The Secretary School Education Depaf‘fmen'r,- D.K.$.‘ Bhawan Raipur‘ (C.6.) ./ 2. Join’r Direcfor Treasuries, accoun’rs & Pension, Bilospur, Dis’rricT-Bilaspur (6.6.) 3.,” DisfricT Educa’rion Officer, Bilaspur, Disfricf— Bilaspur (6.6.) “T ‘ 4. Block EducaTion Officer, Pm‘horio, DisT‘r. Bilaspur (C.G.) I TITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE ’ CON$TITUTION OF INDIA. .1 @wAP‘ ‘WRT PE (Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Cons itutlon of india) Slngle Benck Hon ble Shn Sa’ush K Agnlhotn J Present :-‘ Shri K S Pawar Advocate for the petigone Shn Y S Thakur Deputy Advocate Generai for the State ORDER (ORAL) , ' (Passed or this R‘h day of Mafy, 281 1} ti 1. Ch'allenge in this petition-isto- the order diatéd 30.11.2010 (Annexure P12) whereby, a sum of Rs 49 31 2f- has'béen directed to be reoovered from the retriai dues of the petitioner hoidmg It to be excess payment made to the petitioner during the course of his servrce 2. Learned counsei appearing for the petitioner submits that the cetrtroner while working as Assrstant .Cierk‘rn office of Biock tducatron Officer ’ Faitharia,rretired from'service on 04.013010, on attaining the age of superannuation According to the petitioner the impugned recovery has vkbéen made without affording an‘ opportunitg; of hearing to the petitioner, arid further, the issue. asto whether recotrery of excess payment can be t ma‘gde‘ without foiiowing principles of natural justice is no'Ionger res 'integre,’the same, has been settied by the Supreme Coutt in the matter of Sahib Ram M State ofHaryena and othersf, and further followed by this‘Court in the matter of Vidyedhar Tiwari v. The State of Chhattisgarh a :&§Others2 and Vidya Shankar Tiwerr' v. State‘of MP. (Now State of Chhettisgerh) and others3 and thereafter followed in several decisions. 3. This Court in Remchendre Kurup v. $tate of (3,6. & athers" and other connected matters. observed as under : > , “19 A common thread running into ‘he i i r I above deorsrons of the Supreme Court Is ‘ that for recovery of excess payment or emoiumenrs/eilowances there are three yondr'trbrrs wherein the excess payment 1 two supp r1} SCo 18 22006n)MPHT105rce) a r 3 woos '2) MPHrr Q1 (cc 4 2:310 (3) cow 400 r : AE ‘ $bARH 3¥LASPUR WRIT PETITION (S) NO 2411 OF 2011 PETmONER ‘ 1' Shivanand Mishra Versus RESPONDENTS State of Chhattisgarh & Others may be recavered. name! (i) excess- payment was made on' accaunt of misrepresentaiion or fraud a the parf of , the employee {u} ihe e ployee had knowbdge {hat the payment received was m excess and {m} fhe ermr VlJtas conecfed within a shorf‘ span of hm of wreng payment . . . . . " ‘ Learned counsei appearing for the S ‘iefrespondents eedoes not and controveri submits the that submissions this matter may made be by dispose learneji counsel for the” petitioner of in the same terms. in View of foregomg and as admitted bv learned counsel appearing for the parties this petition is drsposed of in the terms of the order passed in the case of Ramchandra Kurug 1e the impugned order dated 3011 2010 (Annexure P12) regarding recovery of an amount of Rs 49,31 2/— from ‘he retrial daes of the petitioner on account of excess pairment, is hereby quashed. on/ever, it is open to the respondents to take recourse to the provisions of the Chhattisgarh Civii Services (Pension) Rules 1976, if so advised, in accordance with iaw, after foliowing basic principies of natural justice. t] sanshK Agmhom k ‘ i . . Judgei - i ' A‘urn ; H i i i