cf W757 IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR (CHHATTISGARm mm Qanch WRIT PETITION (S) Nowgg 12010. \ WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE ONSTITUTION OF INDI (5a C A PETITIONER: / Wilson Masih, §on of Late Anand Masih, aged about 65 years, Retired Asst. Veterinary Area Officer, Veterinary Department, Bilaspur, Distn‘ct Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh. versus Resgondents 1. State of Chhattisgarh, Through (0 Secretary, Agriculture (Veterinary) W” «fax- _ Department, Oau Kalyan Singh CI? QK/ba» Bhawan, Ra1pur, . Chhattisgarh. . gkL\§ O ’ 2. The Joint Director, Sanchanalaya b Veterinary services, Chhattisgarh, Rajpur. 3. Joint Director, Accounts Treasury and Pension, Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh. HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR (Hon. Mr. Justice Pritinker Diwaker) Writ Petition (S) No. 2449 of 2010 PETITIONER Wilson Masih VERSUS RESPONDENTS State of Chhattisgarh and others Shri Shashi Kushwaha under the authority Shri K.S. ’ Pawar counsel for the' petitioner. Shri A.N. Naha Roy PL for the respondents/State. VWRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA ORDER (27.08.201 1) Challenge in the present writ petition is to the order dated 24.9.2007 (Annexure P-1) passed by the office of Joint Director (Treasury, AccOunts and Pension) - respondent No.3 herein whereby recovery of Rs. 26,859 has been sought to- be made from the petitioner on the ground that it has been paid to him in excess of his entitlement in respect of second Kramonnati. 2. Case of the petitioner who was an employee of Veterinary Department is that after his retirement from the post of Assistant Veterinary Area Officer on 30.6.2005, without affording him an opportunity of hearing, order dated 24.9.2007 (Annexure P-1) has "\ been issued seeking recovery of Rs. 26,859 from him. /’-". 3. Counsel for the petitioner submits that the issue as to whether ’ recovery of the excess payment for no fault of the employee can be made without complying with the principle of natural justice is no longer res integra and the same has been settled by the Supreme Court in various cases including the case in the matter of Syed Abdul Qadir and others v. State of Bihar and others reported in (2009) 3 SCC 475 and relying on that judgment various orders have been passed by this Court directing refund of the excess amount if any O _ r7( «.2- recovered from te employees. He submits that any recovery from the retiral dues can be made in case there was any misrepresentation or fraud committed by the petitioner and that he had the knoWledge tha the payment received by him is in excess. 4. lt is not disputed by the counsel for the respondents that for the first time the second Kramonnati was given to the petitioner on 25.3.2003 which was later cancelled on 11.2.2005. lt is also not disputed by the counsel for the respondents that the order impugned has been passed by respondent No.3 withdut affording any opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. Counsel for the respondents makes a submission that second Kramonnati was again granted to the petitioner on 23.4.2008. Lastly, he submits that liberty may be given to the State Government to recover the said amount if the same has been obtained by the petitioner on account of any misrepresentation or fraud on his part or that he had the knowledge that payment received by him was in excess. 5. ln view of the foregoing factual and legal position, the order impugned dated 24.9.2007 (annexure P-1) directing recovery of Rs. 26,859 on account of excess payment made to the petitioner is quashed. It is informed that the recovery of the alleged excess amount is already set in motion. If that is so, the petitioner is entitled to get back the same with interest at the rate of six per cent per annum subject to verification of facts. However, liberty is reserved to the State that if the excess payment has been made to the petitioner on account of misrepresentation or fraud on the part of the employee or the employee has the knowledge that the payment received by him was in excess, fresh orders may be issued on verification of the facts after affording opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. \ 6. Petition is thus disposed of. No order as to costs. Sdl— /‘ Pr'tt‘mker Diwaker , x “W h t