^ -I o-0 ^—-~ S.HM ^ III1 o IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDJCATURE OF CHHATTISGARH ATBILASPUR W.P.fS.lNO. ^S^ /2010 PETITIONER: ^•"...-- \;' ^wy ^ Laldeo Ram S/o Sri Manga Ram Aged about 45 years, Occupation Peon, Posted at Government Higher Secondary School, Saria, Blcok Baramkela District Raigarh (C.G.) ^"' VERSUS RESPONDENTS 1. 2. 3. State of Chhattisgarh Through : The Secretary, School Education Department D.K.S. Bhawan, Raipur (C.G.) The Joint Director Treasuiy Account and Pension Bilaspur Division Bilaspur, (C.G.) The District Education Officer, Raigarh, District Raigarh (C.G.) The Principal Government Higher Secondary School, Saria, Block Baramkela, District Raigarh (C.G.) WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA FOR ISSUANCE OF WRIT IN NATURE OF MANDAMUS CERTIORARY OR ANY OTHER WRIT OF LIKE NATURE ETC. 4. '""^ ^^ I!tePii il x-^' y ^. ^-^. ^ ^ HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH : BILASPUR WRIT PETITION (S) N0. 6300 OF 2010 PETITIONER Laldeo Ram RESPONDENT Versus State of Chhattisgarh & Others (Writ Petition underArticle 226 ofthe Constitution of India) Single Bench : Hon'ble Shri Satish K. Agnihotri, J. Present:- Shri D.R. Patel, Advocate for the petitioner. Shri N.N. Roy, Panel Lawyerforthe State. ORDER (ORAL) (Passed on this 18th day of March, 2011) 1. 2. 3. 4. Heard learned counsel for the parties. The petitioner, who is working as Peon, is aggrieved by the order dated 6-10-2010 (Annexure - P/2), whereunder a sum of? 33,0737- has been directed to be deducted from the salary of the petitioner, holding it to be excess payment made to the petitioner. According to the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, the impugned recovery has been made without affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, and further, the issue asto whether recovery of excess payment can be made without following principles of natural justice is no longer res integra, the same has been settled by the Supreme Court in the matter of Sahib Ram v. State ofHaryana and others1, and further followed by this Court in the matter of Vidyadhar Tiwari v. The State of Chhattisgarh & Others2 and Vidya Shankar Tiwari v. State of M.P. (Now State of Chhattisgarh) and others3 and thereafter followed in several decisions. This Court in Ramchandra Kurup v. State of C.G. & Others4 and other connected matters, observed as under: 1 1995 8upp(1)8cc 18 22006(1)MPHT105(CG) 32006(2)MPHT31 (CG) 42010(3)CGLJ400 .^'•^'•h T^. ^^r 1 Gowri "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 (i) excess payment was made on account of misrepresentation or fraud on the part of the employee, (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......" Learned counsel appearing for the State/respondents does not controvert the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioner and submits that this matter may be disposed of in the same terms. In view of the foregoing and as admitted by learned counsel appearing for the parties, this petition is disposed of in the terms of the order passed in the case of Ramchandra Kurup4. i.e. the impugned order dated 6-10-2010 (Annexure - P/2) regarding recovery of amount of? 33,073/- from the salary of the petitioner on account of excess payment, is hereby quashed. If the amount has been recovered, the petitioner is entitled to the said amount. hlowever, liberty is reserved to the respondent authorities to take appropriate steps, in accordance with law, ifso advised. Sd/- SatishK.Agnihotri Judge