t f»EI IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR W. P. (S) No. l(:H' OF 2011. PETITIONER ^)-;^ ^i^ ^>^'" ^ s^ Shatrughan Lal Nagraj, S/o. late Shri H. R. Nagraj, aged about 66 years, Retired Head Master, R/o. Village Junwani, Tahsil Charama, Block Charama, District Kanker (C.G.). VERSUS RESPONDENTS : 1. State of Chhattisgarh, Through : The Secretary, Tribal Welfare Department, D.K.S. Bhawan, Raipur (C. G.) 2. Divisional, Joint Director, Treasuiy, Accounts and Pension, Division Jagdalpur, District Bastar (C. G.) 3. Block Education Officer, Charama, Block Charama, District Kanker (C.G.) sf-^ WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WRIT PET1TION (S) No. 1176 of2011 PETITIONER : ShatmghanLalNagraj. VERSUS RESPONDENTS : State ofChhattisgarh & Others. WR1T PE'lTnON UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUnON OF INDIA SB: Hon'ble Shri Satish K. Asmihotn. J. ^i Present: Shri Somkaat Verma, Advocate for the petitioner. Shri Y.S.Tliakur, Deputy Advocate Geaeral forthe State/ ORDER,(UKAL) (Passed on 03" day ofMareh, 2011) Chalienge in this petition is to the order dated 29.05.2007 (Amiexure P/l) whereby, a sum ofRs. 21.923/- has been directed to be recovered from the retrial dues ofthe petitioner, holdiag it to be excess payment made to the petitioner during the course of his service. Shri Verma, leamed counsel appearing for the petitioner submits tfaat the petitioner, while working as Head Master, retired from service 30.04.2007 attainingthe age of superannuation. Accordin| to Shri Verma, the impugned recovery has been made without afibrding an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, and further, the issue asto whelher recovery ofexcess payment can be made without following principles of natural justice is no longer res integra, the same has been settled by the Supreme Court in the matter of Sahib Rff.m v. State ofHaryana and others^, and fiirther followed by this Court in the matter of Vidyadhar Tiwari v. The State ofChhattisgar'h & Other^ and Vidya Shankar Tiwari v. State of M.P. (Now State of Chhattisgarh) and others and thereafter followed in several decisions. ' 199SSupp(l)SCC18 -2 2006 (1) MPHT 105 (CG) 32006(2)MPHT31(CG) i;^-i | / s @ Aimt 3. This Court in Ramchandra Kunip v. State ofC.Q. & Others and other connected matters, observed as under : "19. A common thread runnmg into fhe above decisions ofthe 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 payn^ent was made on account ofmisrepresentation or fraud on the part of the employee, (ii) the enipSoyee had knowledge that the payment received was in excess, and (iii) the error was corrected witfain a short span oftime ofvwong payment......" 4. Leamed counsel appeadng fw the State/respondents does not coatrovert the submissions made by leamed counsel for fhe petitioner and submits that this matter may be disposed of in the same terms. 5. ln view of the foregoing and as admitted by leamed counsel appearing for the parties, this petition is disposed ofin the terms of the order passed in the case of Ramchandra Kiirup . i.e. the impugned order dated 29.05.2007 (Anaexure P/l) regarding recovery of amount ofRs. 21.923/- Irom the retrial dues ofthe petitioner on account of exeess payment, is hereby quashed. The petitioner is entitled to fall pensionary benefits/gratuity amount without anv deduction. If the amount has been reeovered. the petitioner is entitled to the said amount. 6. However, it is open to the respondents to take recourse to Rule 65 of the Chhattisgarh Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1976, if so advised, in accordance with law, alter following basic principles of natural justice. — a/- Satish K. AgBihotri Judge 2010(3)CGU400