8 ^ •e^, ^e...^'%{i ^ i^ IN THE HIGHCOURT OF CHHATTISGARH ATBILASPUR W. P. (S) No. OF 2011. PETITIONER ^^-y^y (!• '_^- .,.••;/»" ^> i»-'~ •; Ganesh Ram Sahu, S/o. late Shri Kacharu Ram Sahu, aged about 66 years, Retired Head Master, R/o. Village Sirsida, Post 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, Treasury, Accounts and Pension, Division Jagdalpur, District Bastar (C. G.) s^.,f< '^ 3. Block Education Officer, Charama, Block Charama, District Kanker (C.G.) WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA 'L53^ffW^fftU1E^. HiGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH : BILASPUR WRIT PETITION (S) N0.1677 OF 2011 PETITiQNER Ganesh Ram Sahu RESPQNDENTS it Petition under Sinaie Bench : Versus State of Chhattisgarh & Others te 226 ofthe Constitution of india) 'bte Shri Satish K. Agnihotri, J. Present:- Shri Somkant Verma, Advocate for the petitioner. Shri Satish Gupta, Government Advocate for the ORDER (ORAL'i (Passed o" this 28 day of Mareh, 2011) 1. Heard learned counsei Tor the parties. 2. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner, while working as Head Master, retired from sen/ice on 31/08/2006 on atiaining the age of superannuation. Thereafter, by the impugned order dated 15/09/2006 (Annexure P/1) recovery to the tune of Rs.38.487,'- as excess payment was directed to the petitioner. 3. Accordina to iearned counsei aDcearing for the petltioner, the impugned recoverv has been made without affordina an ODDQrtunity of hearina to the oetitioner, and further, the issue asto whether rscoverv of excess payment after retirement of an employee can be made is no longer fes integra, the same has been settied by th®Supreme Court in the matter of Sahsb Ra.";'/. Sfste afHaryana and others , and further foltowed by this Court in the matter of Victyadhar Twari v. The State of ChhaWsgarh & Oifters and i/»dya Shankar Tswari v. State of M.P. (Naw State of ChhaWsgarh) and oihers and thereafter foilowed in severa! decisions. ' 1995 Supp (1) SCC 18 2 2006(1)MPMT105 (CG) S2006{2)MPHT31 $CG)' <?: ">•- 4. This Court ,'n Ramchandra K'jrup v. Sfats of C.G. & 0 e/s and othsr connected matters, observed as under : "19. A common thread running into the above decisions of the Suprsme Court is that, for recovery of excess payment of emoiuments'allowances, there are thrse conditions wherein the excess paymeni may be recovered, namety (i) excess paymsnt was made on account of misrepresentation or fraud on the pan of the empioyee, (i') the employee had knowiedge that the payment received was in excess. and (iii) the error was corrected a short span of time of wrong Leamed counse! appearing for the Steite/respondents does not controvert the submissions made by learned counse! for the petitioner and submits that this matter may be disposed of in the same terms. in yiew of the foregoing and as admitted by learned eounsel appearing for the parties, this petition is disposed of in the terms of the order passed in the case of Ramchandra Kump . i.e. the impugned ordsr dsted 15/09/2006 (Annexure P/1) regarding recovery proceedings on account of excess payment, is hereby quashed. If the amount has been recovered, the Detitfoner is entitied to the said amount. However, it is open to the respondents to take recourse, if so advised, in accordance with iaw, after foiiowing basic principles of natural justice. Sd/- SatishK.Agnihotri Judge Arun A "-^* -< -^ fj^.i ' 20-1J3 (3) CGLJ 400