(^ ^- / <3e3 IN THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISHGARH AT BILASPUR (C.G.) W.P.(S) No. ULQ_ Petitioner .-^ :^^^0>6"" ^••^^" Respondents I •< f <ftwRra \^^/ Saiyad Saheb Ali Hasmi ^' aged 65 years -Son of Mardan Ali Hasmi, Retired Head Master, Primary School, Jamsarar Kala, resident of Mishra Chal, Dongargaon, Distt. Rajnandgaon.(C.G.) Versus 1. State Government of Chhattishgarh, Through the Secretary, School Education Department, D.K.S. Bhavan, Raipur (C.G.) Divisional Joint Director, Kosh, Lekha and Pension, . RaipurCG 3. District Treasury Officer, Rajnandgaon. Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance^lLwriLof Mandamus/djrection or any other apDropriate writ. s HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH : BILASPUR WRIT_PETITIQN (S) N0. 140 OF 2010 PETITSONER RESPQNDENTS Saiyad Saheb Aii Hasmi State of Chhattisgarh & Others 2. (Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India) Singie Bench : Hon'ble Shri Satish K. Agnihotri, J. Shri Somkant Verma, Advocate for the petitioner. Shri N.N.Roy, Pane! Lawyerforthe State/respondents. (Passed on 03rd day of March, 2011) Chatlenge in this petition is to the order dated 31 .08.2006 (Annexure P/1) whereby, a sum of Rs. 2,09,497/- has been directed to be reco'/ered from the retrial dues of the petitioner, holding it to be excess payment made to the petitioner during the course of his sen'ice. Shri Verma, ieamed counse! appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner, whiie working as Headmaster, retired from service 31.07.2006 on attaining the age of superannuation. According to S'nri Verma, the impugned recovery has been made without affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, and further, ihe issue asto w'nether recovery of excess payment can be made without foliowng principies of naturai justice is no ionger res jntegra, the same has been settled by the Supreme Court in the matter of Sah'sb Ram v. State of Haryana and others , and furthsr followed by this Court in the matter of VidyadharTiwari v. The State of ChhatSsgait & Others^ and Vidya Shankar Tiwari v. State ofM.P. (Now State of Chhattisgarh) and others and thereafSsr fo'lowed in sevsral decisions This Courtin Ramchandra Kurup v. State ofC.G. & Others and other connected matters, observed as under : "19. A common thread running' into the above decisions of the Supreme Court is that, for recovsry of excess payment of emoiuments/ailowances, there are three conditions v/herein the excess payment 11995Supp(1)SCC18 22006(1)?<PHT105(CG) 3 2006 (2) MPHT 31 (CG) 42010(3)CGLJ400 ii§ may be recovered, nameiy (i) excess payment was made on account of misrepresentation 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.corrected within a short span of time of wrong payment. ....." Learned counsel appearing for the State/respondents does not controvert the submlssions made by learned counsel for the petitioner and submits that this matter may be disposed of in the same terms. In view ofthe foregoing and as admitted by learned counsel appearing for the parties, this petition is disposed of in the terms of the order passed in the case of Ramchandra Kunip . i.e. the impugned order dated 31.08.2006 (Annexure P/1) regarding recovery ofan amount of Rs. 2,09,497/- from the retrial dues of the petitioner on account of excess payment, is hereby quashed. The petitioner is entitled to full pensionary beneftts/gratuity amount without any deduction. If the amount has been recovered, the petitioner is entitted to the sasd 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 natural justlce. Sd/- SATISH K. AGNMOTRI Judge