ISi ] '"^pr.'s^S ^ :^^t-. VVtiwt'^ d£~1 ^ f t^^7 IN THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR W.P. NO.KJ 2009 PETITIONER Smt. Sangeeta Sahu,aged 44 years, WifeofShriM.P.Sahu, Lecturer, Govt. Higher Secondary School, Sector-6, Bhilainagar, Tahsil & District Durg (C.G.) Versus RESPONDENTS ,/^y/ s. •' r^.Y^ -•*' ^f^/ .••'l^ \.< ^^^^ <y »<~ ^ ^" , <^/ !.:-• 1. State Govt.of Chhattisgarh Through the Secretary, School Education Department, D.K.S. Bhavan, Raipur(C.G.) 2. Director of Public Instructions, State of Chhattisgarh, Pension Bada, Raipur (C.G.) 3. Divisional Joint Director Kosh, Lekha, Pension, Ghadi Chauk, Raipur(C.G.) 4. District Education Officer, Durg (C.G.) 5. Principal, Government Higher Secondary School, , Sector-6, Bhilainagar, Tahsil & District Durg (C.G.) A 2. WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA FOR ISSUE OF WRIT OF IVIANDAMUS. ^£-_.. .„:! HiGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH : BiLASPUR PET1TSONER RESPONDi WRIT PETiTION (S) N0.4717 OF2009 Smt. Sanseeta Sahu Versus State Govt. of Chhattisgarh & Others (Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India) iingie Bench : Hon'ble Shri Satish K. Agni <J. hea Present:- Shri Somkant Verma, counsel for the petitioner. Shri Y.S. Thakur. Dv. Adv, Generai for the State. ORDER (ORAU (Passed on this 22 day ofJanuan/, 201 Q) 1. Vtflth the consent of the Searned counsel aDDearing for the oarties, the petition is heard finally. 2. Learned counsel appearing for the petitloner submits that v'de the impugned order dated 23-6-2009 (Annexure P,;1) a sum of Rs.51.743/- towards excess oavment made to the oetitioner has been directed to be rscovered from the saiary of tfie petitioner. Shri Verma further submte that the punitive order of recovery has been Dsssed wlthout affordina an 3. Learned counsel further submits that the issue asto whether recoverv of excess pavment for no fault of the ernDloyee can be made wifriout foilo'wincs the Drinciples of natura! justice is no tonger res integra. The same has been settled by the Supreme Court in a catena of decisions ('See Svsd Abdul Qadsr and off'iers vs. State of Bihar and others'). This Court, relying on the above decisions has passed severa! ordsrs, directing refund of the amount, if any, recovered from the empioyees, v»'here the empioyees were not given any opportunity to expiain about the excess payment, if any, madetothem. 4. ' Learned counsei appsaring for the State/respondenfe on the basis of reoiv submits that the increments on account of acquisition of B.Ed. dearee were aranted^bv mistaks to the Detitioner. Since the petitloner has obtained B.Ed. degree prior to entry into ths sen.'ice, ' (2009) 3 SCC 475 c'V Gowr: the petitioner was not sntitlsd to increment. Thus, the imDugned order was passed. However, iearned counsel submits that since no opportunity of hearing was afforded before passing 'the iRnpugned order, liberty may be granted to the respondent/S'tate to take steps for recovery of any excsss amount after foilowing the due process of law snd sfter affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. ~his Court as wsl! as the Suprsme Court in a catena of decisions, time and again reiterates that no recovep/ of exeess paysnent for no fsutt of the emDiovee can be made. This Court in Ramchandra Kwup Vs. Stete of C.G. & oSiers and other connected matters, decided on 23r° November, 20Q8, "bser/ed as under: "19. A common thread running into the above decjsions of the Supreme Court is that, for recovep/ of excess payment of emoiuments/aiiowances, there are three conditions wherein the excess payment may be recovered, namely (i) excess payment was. msde on account of misrepresentation or fraud on the part of the employee, (ii) the empioyee had knovirledge that the payment received v>'as . in excess. and (iii) t'ne error was corrected within a short span of tlme of wrons tn view of the ssttied Dosition of law on the ooint, the petition dsserves to be and is ailowed. Accordingiy, the impugned order dated 23-S-2009 (Annexurs P/1), directing recovery of Rs.51,743/-, on account of excess payment mads to the petitioner, Is hereby quashed. if the amount has already besn recovered, the oetitioner is entitied to the ssid amoun't with interest at the rate of 8% oer annum, subjec'i to verification of facts. However, liberty is resen/ed to the State/respondents to take anv steps, if so advised, in accordance with iaw for recoverv of excess oavment. No order asto costs. Sd/- Satish K. Agnihotri Judge i/.P.(S) No. 3863 of 2009