V O^ IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE :: CG :: BILASPUR WRIT PETITION (S) N0 : ($8$^ OF 2009 PETITIONER Manrakhan Lal Sahu aged 63 yrs, s/o Shri R.C.Sahu Retd. Agriculture Development Officer r/o Gram: Ratanmahaka Tah : Kharsia, Distt-Raigarh CG -VERSUS- RESPONDENTS .»»..<®! ^ ;y^l> A^' ^y'T 2. The State of Chhattisgarh Through: The Secretary to the Goverrunent of CKhattisgarh, Agriculture Departnent: DKS Bhavan: RaipurCG The Deputy Director, Agriculture: Ralgarh CG WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA ...-f9'"^ /'^a. "%. A^ HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR PETITIONER WRIT PETITION fS) No. 6854 of2009 Manrakhan Lal Sahu. RESPONDENTS VERSUS The State of Chhattisgarh & Another. WR[T PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OFJNDLA. SB: Hon'ble Shri Satish K. Aenihotri.J, Present: Shri Anurag Dayal Shrivastava, Advocate for the petitioner. Shri P.K.Bhaduri, Panel Law^'er for the State/respondents. ORDER (ORAL) (Passed on 15th day ofMarch, 2011) Challenge in this petition is to the order dated 07.09.2007 (Annexure P/l) whereby, a sum ofRs. 2,41,215/- has been directed to be recovered from the reto'ial dues of the petitioner, on the ground that the petitioner had taken advance of Rs. 4 lacs for conducting the work under the Govemment scheme, but only a sum of Rs. 1,58,785/- was utilized in Ihe said work. Thus, the difference amount of Rs. 2,41,215/- has been directed to be recovered from the retrial dues ofthe petitioner. Shri Shrivastava, leamed counsel appearing for the petitioner submits 'that the petitioner, while working as Agriculture Development Officer, retired from service on 31.12.2006, on attaining the age of superannuation. According to Shri Shrivastava, the impugned recovery has been made without affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, and fiirther, the issue asto whether recovery of excess payment ,can be made without I following principles of natural justice is no longer res integra, the same has been settled by the Supreme Court in the matter of Sahib Ram v. State ofHaryana and others , and further followed by this Court in the matter of Vidyadhar Tiwari v. The State of 11995Supp(l)SCC18 ..jllSti.Vf!.^- Amit Chhattisgarh & Others and Vidya Shankar Twari v. State ofM.P. (Naw State of Chhattisgarh) and others and thereafter followed in several decisions. This Court in Ramchandra Kurup v. State ofC.G. & Others and other connected matters, observed as under: "19. A common thread running into the 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 paymentwas made on account ofmisrepresentation or fraud on the part of the empioyee, (ii) the employee had knowledge that the payment received was in excess, and (iii) the error was corrected within a short span oftime ofwrong payment..... ." Leamed coimsel appearing for the State/respondents does not controvert the submissions made by leamed counsel for the petitioner and submits that this matter may be disposed of in the same temis. In 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 Kurup . i.e. the impugned order dated 07.09.2007 (Annexure P/l) regarding recovery ofamount ofRs. 2,41,215/- from the retrial dues ofthe petitioner on account of excess payment, is hereby quashed. If the amount has been recovered, the petitioner is entitled to the said amount. 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, after following basic principles of naturaljustice. Sd/- Satish K. Agnihotri Judge 1 22006(1)MPHT105(CG) 32006(2)MPHT31(CG) 4 2010(3)cou 400