WW éégEmw IN THE HON’BLE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR W.1>.s' No. 53 /2010 G.K. Fatnani, S/o. M.K. Fatnami, aged about 52 years, W0. Agyeynagar, Bilaspur, District Bilaspur (C.G.) VERSUS State of Chhattisgarh, through: Secretary, Water Resources Department, D.K.S. Bhawan, Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.) 2] Executive Engineer, Water Resources Division, KOta, District Bilaspur (C.G.) Executive Engineer, Kharang Water Resources Division, Bilaspur, District Bilaspur (C.G.) Joint Director, Kosh, Lekha & Pension, Bilaspur, District Bilaspur (C.G.) PETITIONER RESPONDENTS WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH : BILASPUR WRIT PETITION (S) NO.853 OF 2010 PETITIONER G.K. Fatnani Versus State of Chhattisgarh & Others (Wrif Petition under Am’cles 226 of the Constitution of India) Single Bench : Hon’ble Shri Satish K. Agnihotri, J. Present :- Shri Manoj Raranjape, counsel for the petitioner. Shri N.N. Roy, Panel Lawyer for the State. RESPONDENTS ORDER (ORAL! (Passed on this 2" day of May, 201 1). m - 1. Heard learned counsel for the parties. Learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the respondent No.4Iby recording in the service book of the petitioner, withdrew the increments granted earlier to him w.e.f. July, 1999. The impugned action has been taken without affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. Even without passing an order, the entry has been made in the service record to adjust the alleged excess payment made on account of grant of increments, which according to the learned counsel appearing for the State the petitioner was not entitled to. This Court in Ramchandra Kurup v. State of CG. & Other31 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 spa‘n of time of wrong payment ...... " r . ’ ,/ x 12010 (3) CGLJ 400 Be that as it may, the principles of law is well settled that an order visiting with civil (evil) consequences cannot be passed without affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. ln the case on hand, the benefit granted to the petitioner in the month of July, 1999 has been withdrawn without recording reasons and without affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. For the reasons 'mentioned hereinabove, the order of Deputy Director recorded in the service book of the petitioner (Annexure ~ PM) as weir as the order dated 31—12-2009 (Annexure — P/2) passed by the Executive Engineer, Department of Water Resources, Kota, District Bilaspur, are quashed. However, liberty is reserved to the respondent authorities to consider the case of the petitioner, in accordance with law and on its own merits, after affording proper opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. Resultantly, the writ petition is allowed to the extent inicated above®No order asto costs satish K Agnihetri ' Judge T ‘ I 7‘ V K Gowri Sd/— ,_ , ,\ d