PETiTiONER RESPONDENTS State of Chhattisgarh & Another (Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of india) Single Bench : Hon’bie Shri Satish K. Agnihotri, J. Present :— Shri Somkant Verma, Advocate for the petitioner. ‘ 1 {20(39) 3 scc 4,75 WRIT PETiTiON (S) NO. 846 OF 2010 Ahmaduiiah Khan Versus Shri P.K. Bhaduri, Panet Lawyer forthe Statelrespondents. ORDER IORAL) » (Passed on 10*“ day of February, 201 1) 1. 8y the present petitian, the petitioner chaiienges the order dated 2i08.2609 (Annexure PM), whereby a sum of Rs. 33,875i- has been deducted from the retiral dues of the petitioner, hoiding it to be eXCess payment made to the petitioner, during the course of his service. Shri Verma, teamed counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner retired from service on attaining the age of superannuation on 31 .122009. During the course of settlement of retirat dues, a sum of Rs 33,8?SI- was deducted hoiding it to be excess payment made to the petitioner during the course of his service. Shri Verma further submits that the issue asto whether recovery of excess payment for no fauit of the employee can be made without following theprincipies of natural justice is no longer res integra. The same has been settled by Hon’bie Supreme Court in various decisions (See: Syed Abdut Qadir and others v. State of Bihar attd ethers’}. This Coutt, reiying on the above decisions has i l/A\ ‘ E)x passed several orders, directing refund of the amount, if any, recovered fmm the employees, where the empicyees were not given any opportunity to expiein about the excess payment, if any, made to them. 'Shri Verma further contends that any recovery from retire! dues can be made oniy in case, it there was any misrepresentation or fraud on the part of the empioyee and the emptoyee had knowledge that the payment was received in excess. The error, if any; could have been corrected within a short span of time from wrong payment. Learned counsel appearing for the respondents does not dispute the above submission made by learned counsel appearing for the petitioner. However; 'he submits that the similar order may be passed, subject to verification of facts. This Court, as Well as Hon’ble Supreme Court, in a catena of decisions, time and again reiterated that no recovery of excess payment for no fault of the employee can be made without foiiovving the principles of naturai justice. This Court in Remchandra Kump v. State of C.G. & othersz and other connected matters, decided on 23'“ November, ZGQQ, observed as 01 “19. A common thread running into the above decisions of the Supreme court is that, for recovery of excess payment of emoluments/ ailowances, there are three conditions wherein the excess payment may be recovered, namely (i) excess payment was made on account of misrepresentation or fraud on the part of the empioyee, (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. .. ... ... ‘ W.P.(S) No. 3663 of 2009 3 0;} in View of the forgoing, the impugned order dated 21.08.2009 (Annexure P/1) directing recovery Rs. 33,875l- on account of excess payment made to the petitioner, is hereby quashed. if the amount has aiready been recovered, the petitioner is emitted to the said amount with interest at the rate of 6% per annum, subject to verification of facts. However, ttberty is reserved to the State/respondents that if the excess payment has been made on account of misrepresentation or fraud on the part of the employee, or the empioyee had the knowiedge 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. Accordingly, the writ petition is accordingiy disposed of. No order asto costs. Sd/- Satish K. Agnihotri Judge ashok