Sl«» CL^ '^r^<7 IN THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF CHHAmSGARH AT BILASPUR W.P.(S) N0. 13UA /2010 (S.B.I PETITIONER RESPONDENTS ..••. -p ^/yy ^%)%r ^t^-" _^'~ t' / ^' :•••'•' / / : Kanhaiya Lal Paliya, S/o M.R. -y Palfa, aged about 64 years, Retired Head Master, Govt. Middle School, Tarda, Block - Kartala, Distt. Korba (C.G.) VERSUS ^: 1. State of Chhattisgarh Through :- The Secretary, Tribal welfare Department, D.K.S. Bhawan, Raipur (C.G.) ^2. Commissioner Tribal Welfare Department, Raipur, Distt. Raipur (C.G.) ^3. Divisional Joint Director, Treasury Account SE Pension Bilaspur, Division Bilaspur, Distt. BUaspur (C.G.) /^4. Assistant Commissioner Tribal Welfare Department, Korba Distt. Korba (C.G.) ^5. Block Education Officer, Kartala, Block Kartala, Distt. Korba (C.G.) ... "'^ <-^1,'^-^ WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA. sse's fflGH COURT OF CHHATIISGARH AT BILASPUR WRITPETmON<S^ No. 1242 of2010 PETTTIONER : KanhaiyaLalPaliya. VERSUS KESPONDENTS : StateofChhattisgarh&Others. WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA SB: Hon'bte ShriSatish K. Aenihotri. J. Present: Shri K.S.Pawar, Advocate for the petitioner. Shri N.N.Roy, Panel Lawyer for the State. ORDERfORAL) (Passed on 25aday of Mareh, 2010) With the consent ofleamed counsel appearing for the parties, the mattCT is heard finally. Challenge in this petition is to the coinmunication dated 15.02.2010 (Annexure P/2) whereby the petitioner has been direeted to deposit a sum of Rs. 12000/- holding it to be excess payment made to him during the course of his service, for settling his retiral dues and other pansionary benefits. Leamed counsel appearing for tfae petitioner sulimits that the petitioner, working as Assistant Teacher, retired from service on attaming the age of superannuation on 31.12.2008. The petitioner received a conuniinication dated 15.02.2010 (Annexure P/l) issued by the respondent authorities whereby the petitioner has been directed to deposit a sum of Rs. 12,000/- holding it to be excess payment made to the petitioner, during the course of his seivice. Leamed coimsel further submits that the issue asto whether recovery of excess payment for no fault of the employee can be made without following the principles of natural justice is no longer res integra. The same has been settled by Hon'ble Supreme Court in various decisions (S® SyedAbdul Qadir and others v. State ofBihar and other^). This Court, relying on the above decisions has passed several orders, directing refimd ofthe amount, ifany, recovered from the employees, where the employees were not given any opportunity to explain about the excess payment, if any, made to them. Shri Pawar fiirther contends that any.recovery fi-om retiral dues can be made only in case ifthere was any misrepresentation or (^ 1(2009)3SCC4?5 ,^y ^ir,^it,, sf t'ii, r.j'nit 4. 6. 7. fraud on the part offhe employee and the employee had knowledge that the payment was received in exeess. The error, if any, could have been correeted within a short span oftime from wiong paymeat Leamed counsel appearing for the respondents does not dispute the above submission made by leamed coimsel appearing for the petitioner. However, he submits that the similar order inay be passed, subjeet to verifieation offacts. This Court, as well as Hon'ble Supreme Couit, in a catena of deeisions, time and again reiterated that no recoveiy ofexcess payment for no tault of the employee can be made without following the principles of natural justice. This Court in Ramchandra Kurup v. Stttte ofC.G. & other^ and other conneeted matters, decided 6n 23 November, 2009, observed as under: "19. A common thread ronning into the above deeisions of the Supreme Court is that, for reeovery of excess payment of emoluments/allowances, there are three conditions wherein the excess payment may be recovered,_namely (i) excess payment was made on aecount of misrepresentation or fraud on tfae part of the employee, (ii) the employee had knowledge that the payment reeeived was in excess, and (iii) the error was correeted within a short span of time of wrong payment.........." In view ofthe forgoing, the impugned order dated 15.02.2010 (Annexure P/2) directing deposit of Rs. 12,000/- on account of exeess payment made to the petitioner, is hereby quashed. However, liberty is reserved to the State/respondents that if the excess payment has been made on account of misrepresentation or fraud on the part offhe employee, or the employee had the knowledge that the payment received by his was in excess, fresh orders may be issued onverification of the facts, after affording opportunity ofhearing to the petitioner. The writpetition is accordingly disposed of. .t^wffl ^tV \-— ^ ^e ^s^^^StSS^s^^S^SSS^MK^t^^SiiitS^SSSS^^^^^^