wJg ‘ @ IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BILASPUR CHHATTISGARH Writ Petition (S)5®%¥ /2008 (VLj/mf‘ ‘ (SB) 2. Deputy Director, Gratuity Provident Fund, C.S.E.B. Daganiya Raipur, Tahsil & District — Raipur (C.G.) / RIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 2261227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, FOR THE ISSUANCE OF DIRECTION (S) OR ORDER (S). W PETITIONER y Dhansay Sahu, S/o Shri Ratanlal, Aged about 64 years ...... Resident' of Village — Baloda Bazaar g lag ' ‘/' Panchashil Nagar, Forest House Road, Raipur (C.G.) -VERSUS- é’gxw ..... RESPONDENTS , 1. Director, / Finance and Accounts C.S.E.B. Daganiya Raipur, Tahsil & District — Raipur (C.G.) meH goum‘ QF cgHATTiSGARH : BILASPUR Writ Petition (S) No. 5087 of 2008 Petitioner Dhansay Sahu ’ Versus Respondents Director, Finance and Accounts, C‘S.E.B. 8s others " WRIT PETITION UNDER ARI‘ICLE 226i 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA (SB: Hon’ble Shri Satish K. Agnihotn’ J.) Shn‘ Prakash Tiwari, Advocate for the petitioner. Shn' Sunil Otwani, Advocate for the respondents. OR D m R 10ml) Heard. (Passed ' on this 5‘11 day of November, 2009) e The challenge in this petition is to the order dated 30,8.2007 (Annexure P/ 1), whereby the petitioner has been directed $0 deposit a sum of Rs. 52,296/— (Rupees F‘iiiy ’I‘wo Thousand, Two Hundred and Ninety—six) towards excess payment made to him under the head of Provident Fund, else the same shall be recovered nnm the pensionary benents. 2. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was not given any opportunity, to explain about the payment made to the petitioner. Thus, this order is vitiated for want of compliance of the principles of natural justice and fair play in action. Learned counsel further submits that there is no fault on the part of the petitioner and the amount is paid to him in accordance with the pay scales, revised and nxed by the respondents n~o1n time to time. No reason has been assigned asto on which count the excess payment, if any, was made. The respondents cannot recover the amount, already paid to the g4; ~2/ petitioner after his mtirement, that too Without following the principles of natuml justice. Leamed counsel appearing for the respondents submits that there was wmng payment in the account of Pmvident Fund, thus, the recovery of the same has been directed by the concerned authority. The respondent-authorities haw not followed the principles of natural justice and the impugned action has been taken Without aEording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. The practice of passing order involving civil consequences, Without show cause notice or without aEording an opportunity, is condemned. The issue asto Whether recovety of excess payment can be made after retirement of the employee is no longer res integra. The same chas been settled by Hon’ble Supreme Court in various decisions. In Syed Abdul Qadix and others vs. State of Bihar and othersl, Hon’ble Three Judges of the Supreme Court, having considered all the aspects of the matter and the decisions rendered by the Supreme Court in the past, observed as under: ‘57. This Court, in a catena of decisions, has ganted relief against recovery of excess payment of emoluments/allowances ' if (a) the excess amount was not paid on account of any misrepresentation or naud on the part of the employee, and (b) if such excess payment was made by the employer by applying a wrong principle for calculating the pay/allowance or on the basis of a particmar interpretation of rule/order, which is subsequently found to be erroneous. 58. The relief against recovery is granted by courts not because of any right in the employees, but in equity, exercising y y judicial discretion to relieve the employees mom the hardship - g that Will be caused if recovery is ordered. But, if in a given case, it is proved that the employee had lmowledge that the payment received was in excess of What was due or wrongly paid, or in cases Where the error is detected or corrected w1th1n » a short time ofwrong payment, the matter being in the realm of / judicial discretion, courts may, on the facts and circumstances _ 1 (2009) 3 soc 475 \ (W ,g/ of any particular case, onier for mcovely of the amount paid in excess. See Sahib Ram v. State of Haryana, Shyam Babu Verma v. Union of India, Union of India v. M. Bhaskar, V. Gangamm v. Director, Col. B.J.Akkaxa (Retd.) v. Govt. of India, Purshottam Lal Das v. State of Bihar, Punjab National Bank v. Manjeet Singh and Bihm‘ SEB v. Bijay Bhadur.” In View of the forgoing, the petition is allowed. The impugned cider dated 30.8.2007 (Annexure P/ 1), directing recovexy of Rs. 52,296/—, on account of excess payment made to the petitioner, is hereby quashed. The petitioner is entitled to full Ietiral benehts without any deduction. If the amount has already been recovered, the petitioner is entitled to the said amount with interest at the rate of 6% per annnm. No order asto costs. Sd/e \ Judge