K.: (^ I. ^ <—^- IN THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISHGARH AT BILASPUR (C.G.) W.P.(S) No. /3^ 2010 'ii^&LE iu'v^r Petitioner / '•rf ^ ^-; r^^C' ^••'^•^ -<.^>''" ^-" Narad Singh Patel aged 63 years Son of Late Johan Lal Patel, Retd. Upper Divison Teacher, Govt. Hr.See. School, Kirgi, Block & Tah. Dongargaon, R/oVill.Reewagahan, PO. Khursipar, Distt. Rajnandgaon.(C.G.) Versus Respondents ^0;»lAf^ ";'—<<s'.-\ /.^''^~~~~^''y~": /^ "^.^ \^ (SL^97^ V [r'\s^^^ A ^ Y'""''; <C y ... 1. State Government of Chhattishgarh, Through the Secretary, School Education Department, D.K.S. Bhavan, Raipur (C.G.) 2. Divisional Joint Director, Kosh, Lekha and Pension, -^ Raipur CG 3. District Treasury Officer, Rajnandgaon. Writ Petition underArtide 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of wnt of Mandamus/direction or any other aDDropriate writ. ^\QV mOH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR PE'HTIONER RESPON-DENTS %7RTT PETITION (S) No. 138 of2010 Narad Singh Patel. VERSUS State Govenunent ofChhattisgarh & Others. WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA SB: Hon'bieShri Satish K. Aanihotri. J. Present: Shri Somkant Verma, Advocate for the petitioner. Shri P.K.Bhaduri, Pansl Lawysr for the State/rsspondsnts. Q3RALQRDER (Passed on 23rd day of Fsbruar>', 2010) With the eonsent ofleamed counsel appearing for the parties, the matter is heard fmally. 1. Challenge in this petition is to the order dated 31.01.2009 (Annexure P/l) whereby it has been directed to recover a sum of Rs. 34.878/- from the retiral dues ofthe petitioner, holding it to be excess payment made to the petitioner, during the course ofhis service. 2. Shri Shrivastava, ieamed counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner, working as Head Master, retired from service on attaining the age of superaimuation on 30.11.2008. The petitioner received a communication dated 31.01.2009 (Aimexure P/l) issued by the respondent No.2 directing recovery of Rs. 34,8787- fi-om the retiral dues of the petitioner holding it to be excess payment made to the petitioner, during the course ofhis service. 3. Shri Verma fiirther submits that the issue asto whether recovery pf excess payment for no fault ofthe employee can be made without following the principles of naturai justice is no longer res integra. The same has been settled by Hon'ble Supreme Court in various decisions (See Syed Abdul Q,adir and others v. State ofBihar and others^). This Court, relying on the above decisions lias passed several orders, directing refund of the amount, ifany, recovered from the 'employees, where the employees were not given any opportunity to explain about tlie excess payment, ifany, made to them. Shri Shrivastava further contends that any recovery from retiral dues can 1 (2009) 3 SCC 475 .-t-ylui*~dlUtUl-uuu ».. 4. 5. 6. 7. 9. Amit be made only in case if there was any inisrepresentation or fraud on the part of the employee and fhe employee had knowledge that the payment was received in excess. The error, ifany, could have been corrected within a short span oftime from wrong payment Leamed counsel appearing for the respondents does not dispute the above submission made by leamed counsel appearing for the petitioner. However, he submits that the similar order may be passed, subject to verification offacts. This Court, as well as Hon'ble Supreme Court, in a catena of decisions, time and again reitsrated that no recovery ofexcess payment for no tault of the employee can be made without followina the principles of natural justice. This Court in Rainchandra Kurup v. State ofC.G. & others^ and other connected matters, decided on 23 November, 2009, observed ag under: "19. A common fhread mnning into the above decisions of fhe Supreme Court is that, for rseover)' of excess payment of emoluments/allowances, there are fhree eonditions wherein the excess payment may be recovered, namely (i) excess payment was made on account ofmisrepresentation or fraud on the part of the employee, (ii) the employee had knowledge that the payment received was in excess, and (iii) the error was coirected within a short span oftime ofwrong payment." In view ofthe forgoing, the impugned order dated 31.01.2009 (Anaexure P/l) directmg recovery Rs. 34.878/- onaccount ofexcess payment made to the petitioner, is hereby quashed. tfthe amount has already been recovered, the petitioner is entitled to the said amount with interest at the rate of6% per annum, subject to verification offacts. However, liberty is reserved to the State/respondents that if the excess payment has been made on account of inisrepresentation or fraud on the part ofthe employee, or the employee had the knowledge that the payment received by her was in excess, fresh orders may be issued on verification of the facts, after affbrding opportunity ofhearing to the petitioner. The writ petition is accordingly disposed o£ No order asto costs. ___—---—-— 1 SATISH K. AGNfflOTM 1 Judge 2 W.P.(S) No. 3663 of 2009