^ Ct^- \ &-s7 /-• IN THE HON'LBEL HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR W. P. (S)No. U&2- /2010 PETITIONER vJs .^-<^ ^•'1\9-'' ; ^'^©^" ."^^x1\ y RESPONDENTS .f: Shiv Prasad Mahobe S/o Shri c-itt Sa^l-u <fl"» Mahobe aged about- 64 years, Retd. Upper Division Teacher, Block Rajnandgaon, District- Rajnandgaon (C.G.) 1. l^ 2. 3. 4. Versus State of Chhattisgarh, Through:- The Secretary, Education Department, D.K.S. Bhawan Raipur, Distt.- Raipur District Education Officer, Rajnandgaon, District- Rajnandgaon (C.G.) Block Education Officer, Rajnandgaon, District- Rajnandgaon (C.G.) Treasury Officer, Rajnandgaon District- Rajnandgaon (C.G.) WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA. HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH : BILASPUR WRIT PETITION (S) N0.482 OF 2010 PETITIONER Shiv Prasad Mahobe RESPONDENTS Versus State of Chhattisgarh & Others (Writ Petition underArticle 226 ofthe Constitution of India) Single Bench : Hon'ble Shri Satish K. Agnihotri, J. Present:- Shri Basant Dewangan, Advocate for the petitioner. Shri Ajit Singh, Panel Lawyer for the State. ORDER (ORAL) (Passed on this 13th day ofJanuary, 2011) 1. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. By this petition, the petitioner seeks a direction to the respondents to refund an amount of Rs.25,405/- with interest @ 12% per annum to the petiti'oner, which has been deducted from his retiral dues. 3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner retired from the post of Upper Division Teacher on 31/12/2008 on attaining the age of superannuation. Learned counsel further submits that as per the retiral dues '•calculation sheet, the petitioner is entitled to get an amount of Rs.2,89,241, as is evident from Annexure P/1. However, an amount of Rs.25,405/- has been deducted from the retiral dues of the petitioner without affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. Thus, this petition. 4. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was not afforded opportunity of hearing to explain about the payment made to him. Thus, the impugned recovery 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 was paid to him in accordance with the pay scales, revised and fixed by the \(c., "sl. 1, 2 respondents from time to time. The respondents cannot recover the amount, already paid to the petitioner, without following the principles of natural justice. 5. Learned counsel appearing for the respondents submits that by mistake extra wages were granted to the petitioner, thus, the above ^ recovery. If the excess payment was made to the petitioner, ttie same can be recovered at the time of settlement of retrial dues. 6. The respondent authorities have not followed the principles of natural justice and the impugned action has been taken without affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. The practice of passing order involving civil consequences, without show cause notice orwithout affording an opportunity, is condemned. 7. The issue asto whether recovery of excess payment for no fault of the employees can be made without following the principles-of natural justice is no longer res integra. The same has been settled by the Supreme Court in various decisions. In Syed Abdul Qadir and others v. State of Bihar and others 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 granted relief against recovery of excess payment of emoluments/allowances if (a) the excess amount was not paid on account of any misrepresentation or fraud on the part of the employee, and (b) if such excess payment was made by the employer by applying a wrong principles for calculating the pay/allowance or on the basis of a particular 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 judicial discretion to relieve the employees from the hardship that will be caused if recovery is ordered. But, if in a given case, it is proved that the employee had knowledge that the payment received was in excess of what was due or wrongly paid, or in cases where the error is detected * (2009) 3 SCC 475 c or corrected within a short time of wrong payment, the matter being in the realm of judicial discretion, courts may, on the fact and circumstances of any particular case, order for recovery of the amount paid in excess. See Sahib Ram v. State of Haryana, Shyam Babu Verma v. Uniion of India, Union of Indian v. M. Bhaskar, V. Gangaram v. Director, Col. B.J. Akkara (Retd.) v. Govt. of India, Purshottam Lal Das v. State of Bihar, Punjab National Bank v. Manjeet Singh and BiharSEB v. Bijay Bhadur." 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 v. State of C.G. & Others and other connected matters, observed as under: "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 hay be recovered, namely (i) excess payment was madp 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.........." In view of foregoing, the writ petition is allowed. The respondent authorities are directed to settle the retiral dues of the petitioner in accordance with law. The recovery amount of Rs.25,405/- may also be refunded to the petitioner. No order asto costs. Sd/- SATISH K. AGNMOTRJ Judge Arun