3W CH 5 E BEN INTHE mGH covRT 6F CHHATTISGARH ATB‘ILASPUR W P SN 2 H O 2011. .‘ . ()o. —H Lt F , ,;/ Anandi Ram Khobrag’ade /o._ late S r' Daaram db 6 ' ears, R'e‘tiy’ed Head Master 1 /o. Villagfe’ Jé‘p‘ra‘, P‘o‘St Jepr R a, Via iLakhainpLi‘ri, Block Charama, District Kank (C.G.). , S i y Khobragade, age_aout 4 y , V RSHU S .E State of Chhattis' hroug: The ecretary . pt, i C G 4‘1. g h Th S, Tribal Welfare Deartmen D.K.S. Bhawan, Rapur (. .) Block EduCatiori Officer ararna, Block hararna, strict anker C.G.) RIT E’ETITIOIW UNDER ARTICLE2'26 OF TH TITUTION OF INDIA i. \ “w , er /, , Ch C Di K ( W E CONS L HiGrH COURTOF CHHATTISGARH 1 BHA -WR_IT PETmON i8) NO. 2444 $F 201 PETITIONER Anandi Ramk Kh'ob agade Versus RESPONDENTS 1 V Staté of Chhattis ‘arh & Another (Writ Peiition under‘Articie 226 of the Constitution of India} Singie Bensh : Hdn’ble Shri Satish K {kgmhotn J Preaent :- Shri SomkantVerma Advecate fortlre pentmner 5hr! Satish Gupta Govt Advocate forthe State ORDER {ORAL} : (Passed on this 69m day of May, 201 1 ) By this petman the petltmner seeks a direction to the respondents to refund an amount of Rs 21 923/— which was ' deposned by the petmoner after his rehrameni wde Annexure P;2 on 1902 2009 on the baSIs of oral Instructions of the _ respondent authorities on the ground that excess payment made to the petlt oner ’ ‘ 8hr! Verma teamed counsel appearing for the petttroner submits that the oetltroner white workmg as Head Master x _ retired on attaining the aoe of superannuation on 30 11 2008 Shn Verma further submits that the petttroner was oratty’ r directed to deposn an amount of Rs 21 923l—I- for the atieged excess payment made to the petitioner With regard to second ktamonnati Which was deposited by the petitioner on 1e G2 2309 (Annexure P/2) According to Shrr Verma the impugned recoverv has been made Without affording an opportumty of hearing to the petitioner and further the Issue asto whether recovery of excess payment can be made ’ without foilowtng princrples of natural justice as no tonger res inteara the same‘has been settted by the Suoreme Court in V the matter of Sahib Ram v State of Haryana and others and further tottowed by thrs Court in the matter of Vidvadhar Tiwan r i 199’5nst‘j5 y; soc '18 ' 1 SPUR ( p 2 v The Sfaz‘e 0f Chhatz‘lsgarh & Othe 52 and Vtdya Shankar Twan v State of MP (Now Stat of Chhaitisgarh) am others ahd thereafter fouowedm seve a! dealsmns. This Ccurt in Ramchendra Kurup v. $tate of CjG. & Others" and other connected matters observe as under “19 A common thread ru mng Into the above daemons of the Sup eme Court rs that for recovery of excess payment of ' errotuments/anomienoes, mete are three conditions wherein the exoess payment -may be recovered nan‘elt (t) excess payment was made on account of mtsrepresentation or fraud on the part of the employee (u) the employee had knowiedge that the payment received was m excess and (m) the error was corrected within a short span of ttme of wrong ' , payment...- Learned counset appeanng for the State/respondents does ot controvert the submrssrons made by learned counsel for the petsttoner and submits that thrs matter may be disposed of m the same terms ’ - ln View of the foregoing and as admitted .by learned counsei appearino for the parties this petition is disposed of in the _ terms of the order passed In the case of Ramchandra Kemp ie. the petitioner rs entttted to fut] penetonary beneftt Without ny deduction if the amount of Rs ‘21 923% has already been recovered the petitioner rs entrtied to refund of the said amount However, it is open to the respondents to take recourse to Rute 65 of the Chhattisgarh Civil Services (Pension) Rules 1976 If so adwsed tn accordance With tavv after foltowmg I baSIc princrptes of natural Justiced ’ Sd/_ éf r SatlshK Agmhotrl r ashok a J)r-ie iv J f l Judge l 2006 2006 2010 £ (1) MPnT 105 (CGt' (2‘) MPHT 31 (CPiw- (3) PQLJ aoo p1 _ l mt i V ' t - a J ‘ n