^ /1 C^ (^ IN THE HIGHCOURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR W.P.tSlNo. ~^j2~3 OF 2011. PETITIONER ri.O ,.\^ ^"s^ ^l^' ^^ ^y Jhummuk Lal Sahu, S/6. late Shri Darbari Ram Sahu, aged about 67 years, Retired Head Master, R/o. New Nakapara, 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.) /3. Block Education Officer, Charama, Block Charama, District Kanker (C.G.) <J^ WRIT PETITION UNDBR ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA The petitioner named above begs to submit as under:- HiGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH : B1LASPUR WR!T PETITiON (Sl .72£Qr2011 PETiTiONER Jhummuk Lai Sahu RESPONDENTS Versus State^of Chhattlsaam & Oihers l-ress (VVrlt Petiiion under Artic!e 226 of the Constitution of Endla) ' Sinole Bench : Hon'bte Shri Satlsh K. Agnihotri, J. Shri Somkant Verma, Advocate for the petitioner. Shri Sushli Dubey, Government Advocate for ths State. Ory-?tr;^tORAU (Passed on ihis 10"' day of Februarv, 2011) 1. Bv the oresent getition. .the oetitioner chaiienaes the order dated 30-6-2008 (Annexure P/1) whereby s sum of Rs.20,66&/- has bee" deducted from the retirai dues of the petitioner. hoidiriQ it to be excess Davment rnade to the Detitioner. durino the course of h's SSFylCS. 2. Shri Verma, 'earned counsei appearing for ihe psliiioner subm'ts thst the petiiioner; working as Head ivlaster, retired from service on attaining the age of supsrannuation on 31-05-2006. During the course of selttieirient of ret'ra! dues, a sum of Rs.20,869/- was deducted hoiding It to be excess pavment made to the Dstitioner during the course of nis service. 3. Shri VeriTaa 'further submits that the issue asto whether recovery of excess payment for no fauit rf the empioyee can be made without fofiowlng tne princlptes of natural Justlce is no ionger res integra. The same has been settled bv Hon'bie Suprsme Court in varsous decisions (See Syed Abdu! Qadir and others v. Staw ofBihar afiQ fthers)- This Coun, reiyins on the above decisions has passed severai orders, directina refund ofthe arnount, if anv. recovered from the empioyees, where the emolovees were not aiven any ooDortuni!iy to exDlain abouf the excess pavment. if anv. iTiade to ihem. Shri Verma furthsr coniends that any recoverv from reiiiral dues can be made on-v 'n case •i' thei'e was anv misreDresentation or fraud on the part of the empioyee and th®employse had knowledge that ihe pavmentwas received in excess. The eiTor. if snv. cQuld have .been corrected within a. short SDon of time from wrong Davrnsnt ^^^rUv^J '*/ 't^/V^/'^ ^" r rgia- ••«,. l<-t nrur 6. Learned counsel appearing fbr the respondents does not d'spi.ite the above submlssion made by iearned counsel appearing for the petltloRer. However, he submife that the simiiar order may be oassed. sublect to veriiicatton of racts. This Court, as weli as Hon'ble Suprsme Court, in a catena of decisions. time and aasin reiterated that no recoverv of excess oayment for no fau't of the empiovee can be made wrehout foiiowina the principtes of natural justice. This Court In Ranwha'w'ra Xurup y. of C.S. & others' and other connected matiers, decided on 23'~ Novsmber. 2009. obsep/ed as under: "19. A common thread runninG into the above decisions of the Suorgme Court is that. fo-" recovery of excess payment of emo!uments/ aiiowances. thsre are three conditions whsreln tne excess paymeni may De recoverec, nameiy (i) excess pnyment was made on account of misrspresentaBon or fraud on the part of ths empioyee, sii) tne eirspioyee haa xnowledge tnat the Davment received was in excess, and (m Ehe •F'?7'.'^!;?" ^.T'.^'^-T£1~ ^Tptr'^ 1"^-H*^'?'J'^-.^ ^-•L.rr"!rLI^ ? P/*E: *^ ^>u ^"'^ ^^. r-T^h- C^^^'-~t;rc^ .^'S^ ^'S^r^-,r'E ir^.to- ©FL'Q;rVtfSS CQFE'SCISQ V^iLHtR & SnCH. SpsH 01 L£!T1©Oi wrong payment. in view of the forgoing, the impugned order dated 30-5-2006 (Annexure P/1) direciina recovery Rs.20.869.'- on acccunt of excess gaymsnt made to the psSitioner, is herebv quasheci. if the amount has aireadv been recovered. the Detiiioner Is entitSed to the ss;d amount wiih Jnterest at the rate of 6% ger anr.um. subiect to vcrification ofraots. However. iibertv is reserved to the Staie/respondents thas if the excess oavmeni has been niade on account cf misreDresentation or frsud on the pasi or tbe employee, or the empioyee had ths knowiedae thai the pavment received &v him was in excess, frssh orders may be issued on verification of the facts, afier affording oDDortuniw of hearjns to the oetitjoner. The writ petltion Is accordingly cisposed of. ______ No order asto costs. ^5 Sd/- Satish K. Agnihotri Judge ^V.P.{S) No. 35Q3 of 200^ "8,! SSl^^^s^^^^^^