-, ^ \^ZT3 G^ 5»l IN THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR (C.G.) WRIT PETITION (S1 N0. / L^ OF 2010 PETITIONER ,\T^ o '^ ^^ \aj^^5 \^?^ ^<^\y .^y .-••' RESPONDENTS Mahesh Ram Yadav Son of Late Shri Megh Nath Yadav, aged about 64 years, Retired Peon (Water Supplier), Resident of Tahsil-Bhatha, Katghora, District Korba (C.G.). VERSUS 1. State of Chhattisgarh, through: The Secretary, Tribal Development Department, D.K.S. Bhawan, Raipur (C.G.). 2. The Assistant Commissioner, Tribal Development, Korba, District Korba (C.G.). 3. ' The Joint Director, Treasury, Accounts and Pension Bilaspur Division, Bilaspur (C.G.). 4. The Principal, Government Higher Secondary School Katghora, DistrictKorba (C.G.). WRITPETITION UNDERARTICLE 226 OFTHECONSTITUTION OF INDIA ^v HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILA8PUR WRTT PETmON (S) No. 14S of201® PETITIONER : MaheshRamYadav. VEKSUS RESPONDENTS : State dfCUiattfsgarii & C»iers. WRIT PETmON UNDER ARTICLE226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA 8B: Hon'Me Shri Satisb K. Aenihutri. J. Present: Shri V.K.fandey, Advocate fiar tite petitiona-. Shri P.K.Bhaduri, Panel Lawyer for the Stata'reqpondeBte. ORALCHftDER 1. 2. 3. (I^ssed on 13°'day of Jannaiy, 2010) With tfae eonsent oftiie paties, the matte- is heairi finally. Challenge in this petition is to the order dated 04.12.2009 (Amiexu-e P/l) and 30.12.20fi9 (Annexure P/2), whereby a sum of Rs. 46,,562A towards excess payment made to Ifae petitiona has been directed to be recovered from the retiral dues. Leamed eounsel appearing for Ihe petitifflier aitMnits Ihat the issue asto whether recovery ofexcesspaymentfbrno&ultirftke employee canbe tnadewithouttbUowmgtfiepTnciplesofnataialjusticeisno'loagerreif integra. The same has beea settled by Hon'ble SupBeme Court in various decisions (See Syed Abdul Qadir and ^iersvs. StMe sfSihw and athffl^). This Court, relying on the above deosions has passed several orders, directing refimd ofthe amount, ifany, recovwed fl'um tiie employees, wfaere the employees were not given aay opportutrily to explain about tiie excess payment, ifany, made fothem. (2009) 3 SCC 475 Leamed coumel appeMing tbr fhe respondeiltB-ctoSs m»t dtepute the above sulnnission made by leamed counsel aappeasmg tbrAe petitioi r. However, he submits Ifaat the smrilar order may be passed, siAjeol toi verificaticm of&cts. 5. This CowtasweB as Hon'ble SupBemeCourtin a catena ofdeeisions, time and again reiterates Ihat no reeovay ofeassess paynaurt for no fault offhe enq>loyee can be ma<te without fottowiug fhe principlas ofnatural justice. This Court in Rmiichandra Kuny ys. StaleofC.G. & ettwff and other connected matters, decided oa 23 NovembCT, 2009, observed asundw: "19. A eommcm thread nmning arto tfae above deeisions ofAe &ipTMne Court is that, fbr i?ecoveiy of excess paymeiA of einoluments/allowatices, there are lliree conditions wha-em the exeess payment may be recovered, namely (i) exwss paymeat was mad& on aceountofmisrq»resentaionor &amdc»ttepartoffhe exaployee, (ii) the employee had fcnowledge llut the payment receivedwas in excess.and (iii) Ihe en-Qrwas corrected wifhin a shwt span of time of wrong paynieiit.........." 6. In view oflhe settled positi<m of law on flte poiut, Ae petition deserves to be and is allowed. Aecordingly, the impugned orders dated 04.12.2009 (Annexure P/l) and 30.12.2W9 (Aan^uire f/2), directing recovery of Rs. 46,562/-, on aecount of exeess paynKBt made to Ifae petitioner, is hereby quashed. Iflfae amount has ah-eady been reeofvered, the petitioner is entitfed to the said ainount wi<h tnterest at Ae rate <rf 6% per aimum, subjectto verification rffacts. No order asto costs. Amit Sd/- SATISH K. AGNIHOTBI Judge W.P.@)No. 3663 of2009