c^ .••:* INJ'HEHIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR W.J'.tStNo. '^2-1 OF 2011. PETITIONER Pratap Singh Thakur, S/o. late Shri D.S. Thakur, aged about 67 years, Retired Head Master, R/o. Near ofGirls School, Main Road Charama, Post Charama, Block Charama, District Kanker (C.G.). VERSUS RESPONDENTS ^'^."••?\; \^ff) ^y \^f^/y ^ti^ : 1. State of Chhattisgarh, Through : The Secretary, Tribal Welfare Department, D.K.S, Bhawan, Raipur (C. G.) 2. Divisional, Joint Director, .-Treasury, Accounts and Pension, Division Jagdalpur, District Bastar (C. G.) 3. BlQck Education Officer, Charama, Block Charama, District Kanker (C.G.) ,Y-' WRIT PETITION UNDERARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA ^s'^s°%. f^\ ®s®^ r HIGH COURT QF CHHATTISGARH : BILASPUR PETiTSONER RESPONDENTS WRITi3eT!TjON (§,N0.724 QF 201i Pratao Singh Thakur Versus SSate of Chhattlsaarh & Others (Writ Petiiion underArticie 226 ofthe Constituticn of indis) Singte Bench : Hon'bte Shri Satish K. Agnihotri, J. 'rssent:- Shri Somkant Verma, Advocafe mr the petitioner. !hri Sushij Dubsv. Government Advocsts for the State. ORDER i'ORAL) (Passed on thss 10'" day of Februar<, 2011) iy the present petition, the petitioner chaiienges the order dated 31-5-2005 (Annexure P/1) wherebv a sum of Rs.29,296/- has Ocsn deducted from the retirai dues of tne petitioner. hoidfng !t to be excess paymsnt made fo the petitioner. Qiiring ths course of hss servsce. '. Shrl Verma, learned counsei appearing fbr ihs petitioner submits that the petitioner, working as Head Master. retired from ssrvice on attaining the sge of supersnnuatlon on 31-05-2005. During the couree of settiemsnt of retira! dues, a sum of Rs.29,296/- wss deducted holding 16 to be excess payment made to the pstitioner curinc; the course of his sen'ice. Shri Verma further su&mits that the Issue asio wheSher recoverv of excess paynient for no fauit of the employee can be made without following ths principies of naturaf jusfice is no tonge!' '&s integfa. The same has been setsSed by Hon'bie Suoreme Court in various decisions CSee Syed Abdiil Qactir end o-thers v. of Bihar sfid oihers'). This Court, reiylng on frie abcve deeislons has y.pv^^v'^ .^ ii^*.^i^^^-^y^ yf^r^ 'ly*-.^ ^\1^ r^^^r^. <*3'?Vh .-^l\'f ^ ;=r^'A ;l'1^ -^i'f/^'^j y^L^^=\\^ ^.^ ^Mr^ "?*T.'Th;i?*!r<fc >6vsrsi orosrs, CtSr^ciinQ FSTUHQ QT IH©srT]Oun^. IT CT^V. r'scovsrsQ ?rom .f\ /^^^ "; ^ r.v^»^^v/~^ fft''^ f^ ..^Tt'v^; y^i ^ TJI*I". •r/'k?^.*^ 1 ^ ?^a\'tp'itfti s^'r. ^". f j'1^ Ii j^'^ 1^1 ^^ty1]'?. 5 j^ •^^'^^^':t ar^'*i i t^i- ivi /r zn^ @iTipioys8s; wnsrs zns Si'T^pioys^s w©rsnoi Q!V®HSiFiy opponuniiy ^•^^IV^ •^f^ .^tl ^^.1 :1:^ *: ll^'. ^*1> j^,'^/J^/lt..!^».(*-» y^.^til-fV^t1 .-^^-F^'iP ^•? ^•^ •^^-'< ^ ik*^l-^* *^ ^^ ::t'?"\ ^^. f^.-k-T^.T C^r^.n^^ ^p^sin aooui ins ©xcssspsynisni. jj sny, !FT!s5GS '^o insnn. •^nn ^^?L^~yy^^! "^ ^yfr^y=t^,yr /^.?c\?^-^j ; :^ ^iii^ '^'~?*"^.'Ta <^y^'^j vj^L.'i^'.^,^jF.^=-r'*rf '?y^hi^^ ?t.''^±:r^*F-^ j ^1'1!?^^'^'' ^H^^!s.L1^ _ .-.^i. y^rn'^s ^unnsr conisn<3s in^s sny rscov^r^ li''om f^uT^i ou^ss csn os mads on!y In case Ifthers wss any misrepresentation or fraud on ihe part of the smpioyee and ths empioyee had knovyiedge that tte Davmeni was receSved in excess. The error. If any, couid have been correctsd withln a short soan of time from wrona oavmeni. t.f.U.Ja) .5 '5,'~'/~^ ^T^, ^^^sspff^^ ^^s? ^ t^ Learned counsei appearing for the respondents does not dispute the above submission made by iearned counsel appearing Tor the petitioner. Hov/ever, he submits that the simiiar order may be passed, subject to verification of facts. T'nis Court, as well as Hon'ble Supreme Court, in a catena of decislons, time and again reiterated that no recovery of excess Dnvment for no fauit of the en-iDiovee can be made.without foilowlna the principles of naturai justice, This Court in Ramchandra Kiinip v. State of C.G. & otherst and other ccnnected matters, declded on 23 Novembcr. 2008. obsorvod ss undsr^ "1S. A common thread rurfning into the above decisions of the Supreme Court is that, for recovery of excess payment of emoiuments/ aitowances, thers are three conditlons whsrein zne excess payment may se recoverea, nameiy (i) excess pavment was maos on ac&ount ot misrepresentation or fraud on the part of the smpioyse, (il) the empioyes had knowledge that the payment received was in excess, and (111) the error viias corrected wthin a short scan o? tirne of wrong payment.........." In view of the forooing, the imDugned orde' dated 31-5-2005 (Annexurs P/1'i direciins recovery Rs.28.29o/- on account of excess payment made to the petStioner, is hereby quashed. if the amount has aireadv been recovered. the aetitioner is ent'tteci to ths sald amount with interest at the rate of 6% oer annum. subiect to vermcation offaots. However, Hberty is resen/ed to the State'respondents that if the excess pavment has besn made on accouni o'? misreDresentaao" or irsud on the part of , tlie empicyee, or ihe smpsoyee had the knowledge that the Davment recelved bv him was in excess, fresh orders mav be issued on yerification of the facts. after aifortiinB opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. The writ petition is accordingly disposed of. _,__~ No ord®7'ssto cos'cs- Satish K. AgBihotri Judge 'W.P.iS) No. 3663 of 2009