m m IN ' ¢ / i E1ITrI0NER ‘ ii a ; HE IGH COURT OF CHHATTISGA ‘ - R' T H RH AT BILASPU zWRI-r PETITION s No €93 c B. SHRIVAST, GD — E S/o M. L. SHVAS, RITAVA REIRED T — SR. co OPERATIVE INSPETO CR, ROM 0 THE REGISTRAR co-OPA SOCIETIE CHHASGARH /o SHITLA PARA WARD No M RIP G. 4 AVA AE 62 YARS F 0/ ERTIVE S TTI R 4 SIGA DISTRICT AUR (C. ) ' VERSUS sTATE OF CHHATETISGAH, R TH TA DTENT OF c OERATIV ALAYA D K s BHAWA AIPU r‘“ 2 HEREGISA, TTRR I - PERATIV IE CHHATrISGARH, . . — I . EENT 3./ THE DIVISIONL JOIT IO REASY, ACOUNT & PNSIO SIO, RAIPUR C. G. / THE DISTRICT REASUAR OFCER; RAIPUR ISTRCT 4 R ( .) TY FI , DI '‘ RAIPU c. G on u‘nder‘FArti‘ce -' o’f theConstitutio fzl' y . i ‘‘l ,226; iVh onjdia. PitIls nf Hm H” arCuar N. v g i” ‘ m m .‘ Pj f i : f OF 2099 : I/ R THOUGH E SECRERY EPARM o PE MANTR N RR i r E H RSPONDS CO OE SOCIETS, H O RAPuR (C. G.) A N DRECTR, TUAR C EN, RAIPUR DIVIN ( ) 4. i % v i i—HGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR ‘ ‘ WRIT PETITION (S) , No. 695 bf 20 10 w ‘ ! PETITIONER : K.B.Shrivastava. i ! . } § ‘ VERSUS RESPONPENTS State of Chhattisgarh & 0th3rs. WRIT PETI'I ION UNDER AR’I ICLE 226 OF THE CUNSTITU'I ION OF INDIA 1 SB Hon’ble Shn Satlsh K Agmhotn, J Present 51m R K Kesharwam, Advocate for the pet1t1oner Shn M P S Bhatla Deputy Government Advocate for the State/respondents - _ g r ORAL ORDER (Passed on 17m day of February, 2010) l Wlth the consent of heard tmally. By the present petition, the petitioner challenges the order dated 30.06.2008 (Annexure/P/I) and 16.09.2008 :(Annexure P/2) whereby the ‘ etitioner a sum of Rs 42 635/- was directed to be recovered h‘om the retrial dues of the petitloner holdmg it to be excess payment made to the pet1tloner during the course of his servme Shri Kesharwani, learned codi‘rsel appearing for the petitioner submits that . : the petitioner, working'as Senior Cooperative Inspector, retired from service on attaining the age of superannuation on 31.08.2007. The petitioner received the impugned orders dated 30.06.2008 (Annexure P/l)‘ and 1i6.09.2008 ‘(Annexure P/2) whereby it was directed to recover a sum ‘ of Rs‘i 42,635/— hom the retiral dues, holding it to he excess payment made: ' ' to the' petitioner, during the course of his service Shri Kesharwam further suhrmts 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 mregm The same has been settled by Hon’ble Supreme Court m various decismns (See Syed Abdul Qadu' and others v State ofBtlmr and others’) This Court relying on the above decisions has passed several orders directing refund of the amount, if any, recovered hem the employees, where the employees were not given any opportunity to explain about the excess payment, if any, made to them. Shri Kesharwani further contends that any recovery horn retiral dues can be made. only, in case if there was'any ed counsel appearmg for the parties, the matter is * ”1' (2009)'3 scc 475 ’_ ‘_ p r l t n1isr§presentation or &aud on the part of th ‘ amployee and thé employee had knowledge that the payment was received in excess The error, if any, could have been corrected w1th1n a short span of tune from wrong payment l Learned counsel appearing for the responde ts does not dispute the above subnlission made by learned counsel appearing for the petitioner However, he submits that the Similar order may be passed subject to Venficatlon of facts This Court, as well as Hon’ble Supreme Cofurgin a catena of.decisions, time and again reiterated that no recovery of excess payment for no fault of the employee can be made Without followmg the principles of natural Justice Thls Court m Rumchtmdm Kurup v State of C G & othersz and other connected matters, dec1ded on 23rd November, 2009, observed as ’ under: “19; A common thread running into the above decisions of the Supreme Court is that, for recovery of excess payment of emoluments/allowances, there are “three conditions wherein the excess payment may be recovered namely (1) excess payment was made on account of misrepresentation or fraud on the part of the x employee, (n) 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.........." In View of the forgomg, the impugied orders dated 30 06 2008 (Annexure P/1)_and 16.09.2008 (Annexure P/2) directing recovery Rs. 42,635/— on account of excess payment made to the petitioner, are hereby quashed. If the aforesaid amount has already been recovered, the petitioner is entitled to the said amount with interest at the rate of 6% per annum, subject to verification of facts. However, liherty is reserved to the State/respondents that if the excess payment has been made on accountpf misrepresentation or fraud on the ‘ part of the employee, or the employee had the knowledgethat the payment receivedby her was in excess, hesh orders may be issued on verification of the facts, after aEording opportunity of‘hearing’to the petitioner. The writ petition is accordingly disposed of. No order asto costs. ‘ 2 W.P.(S) No». 3553M 2009 Satlsh K Aghgt . Judge ‘i" , m“ i.,..,,/