c^i^^. ^»W-£ IN THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISHGARH AT BILASPUR (C.G.) W.P.fS)No. 16?- 2010 ^ Petitioner Smt. Panchwati Bai, 'S-'a" Y^<rS s^' widow of Late Chhotu Chandel, R/o VJII.& Post Diwanbhedi, Distt. Rajnandgaon.(C.G.) Versus Respondents 1 o \0 ^" x^ ,0 -.< N^^> ^^i0-""" ^./:<<^-"' State Government of Chhattishgarh, Through the Secretary, School Education Department, D.K.S. Bhavan, Raipur (C.G.) 2. Divisional Joint Director, Kosh, Lekha and Pension, Raipur CQ _/"' -./.._ 3. District Treasury Officer, Rajnandgaon. $^!i^sN ?'">—'-~.,^' \Wi Writ Pefition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of wrif of Mandamus/djrection or any other apRrppnatewnt. HIGH COIJ8T OF CHHAITISGARH A:r BILA8PUR WRIT PETmON (S) No. 157 of2010 ETITIONER : Srat. Paachwati Bai V. RESPON1DENTS : State Govermneat ofChhattisaarh & Others. WR1T PETmON UNDER AR.TICLE 226 OF THE CONSTnxmON OF INDIA j: uon' Sliri N.N.Roy, Panel lA'wycr for the State.Tespondeats. 4. (Passed on 19 day of Jacuar},', 2010) With the consent ofthe parties, the inatter is heard finailv. Leamed counsel appearing for the impusned order dated 22-2-2008 (Ai towards excess pavnient made to the directed to be recovered from t'he farther submits that the puaitive viae ttis re P/l) a sum ofRs. 42.026./- usband ofthe petitioner has been )ensionary amount. Shri Verma of recoverv has beea passed Leamed counsel farther submits that flie issue asto whether recoven' of excess pavment for no fault of the emplovee caa be made ",'ithout followins the principies ofnatural justice is no'ionger res iraeera. The saine has been ssttled bv the Supreme Court in a catena vt' decisions (See Syed Abdid Qadfr an-3 otkers vs. Stcte af'Bihar anc! others ). This Court, relving on the above decisions has passed several orders. directine rsfund of the amount, if any, recovered from tfae smptoyees, where the emolovees were not eiveB anv opponunitv to exoiain about the excess payment, ifany, made to them. Leamed couasel appearing for the State/respoadents does not dispute the above subraission made by leamed counsei appearing for the petitioner. Shri. Roy farther submits 'that siace no opportumty offaearing ' (2009) 3 SCC 475 .<®!K?E'*t was afforded before passing the impugned order, liberty may be granted to the respondent/State to take steps for recovery of any excess amount after following the due process of law and aflter affording an opportimity ofhearing to the petitioner (widow ofthe deceased employee). This Court as well as the Supreme Court in a catena of decisions, time and again reiterates that no recovery of excess payment for no fault of the employee can be made without following the principles of natural justice. This Court in Ramchandra Kurup Vs. State ofC.G. & others and other connected matters, decided on 23 November, 2009, observed as under: "19. A common thread running into the above decisions ofthe 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 ofmisrepresentation or fraud on the part ofthe employee, (ii) the employee had knowledge that the payment received was in excess, and (iii) the en-or was corrected within a short span of time of wrong payment.........." In view of the settled position of law on the point, the petition deserves to be and is allowed. Accordingly, the impugned order dated 22-2-2008 (Annexure P/l), directing recovery ofRs.42,026/-, on account ofexcess payment made to the petitioner, is hereby quashed. If the amount has already been recovered, the petitioner is entitled to the said amount with interest at the rate of6% per annum, subject to verification offacts. No order asto costs. Sd/- SATISH K. AGNMOTRI Judge Gowri W.P.(S)No. 3663 of 2009