f'F \ G75 ^ 6S IN THE HIGH COURTOF JUDICATURE AT BILASPUR CHHATriSGARH WritPetition (S) ^O^ /2009 (SB) PETITIONER RESPONDENTS Shakun Dewangan, W/o Late Shri Mithtesh Dewangan, Aged about 40 years, Resident of Ramayan Chowk, Chantidih, District- Bilaspur (Chhattisgarh) -VERSUS- /1. StateofChhattisgarh,' Through Secretary, Higher Education, D.K.S. Bhawan Mantralaya Raipur(C.G.) } 2, Principal, / GovernmentScience P.G.College, Bilaspur(C.G.) / 3. Joint Director, treasury / Accounts and Pension Bilaspur (C.G.) WRIT PETITION UNDERARTIGLE226/227 OF THE CONSTITUTIONOF IND!A,R3RTHEISSUANClOFDIRECTIONfSYMORDER(Sl. ^^ .-/y AF^ ^ !: sw i:'il 7 fS».t- 'R HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH : BtlASPUR Writ Petition (S) No. 803 of 2009 Petitioner Shakun Dewaagaa Versus Respondents State of Chhatdsgarh & others WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226/227 OFTHB CONSTITUTION OF INDIA (SB: Hon'ble Shri Satish K. Agmhotri J.) Shri. PrakashTiwari, Advocate for the petitioner. Shri N. N. Roy, Panel Lawyer for the respondents. ORDER(Oral) (Passed on fhis 3rd day of December, 2009) Heard. 1. Challenge in fhis petition is tb the order dated 31.1.2009 (Anhexure P/1), whereby a sum of Rs. 32,350/- (Rupees Thirty Two Thousand, Three Huadred and Fifty) towards excess payment inade to the husbaad of the petitioner has been directed to be recovered. Accordiugly, after death of her husband, the petitioner has been directed to deposit fbc above suin so fhat necessaiy steps aiay be taken for graut ofpension. 2. Learaedcounsel appearfag for the pctitioner submits that the husbaad of fhe petitioner was not given auy opportuiuty to explaiu about the payment inade to him. Thus, the instpugaed order is vitiated for waat of compliance of fhe pnnciples of aatural justice and fair play iu action. Leamed counsel further submits fhat there is no faultouthepartofthe husband ofthe petitioner aad fhe amount was paid to liiia in accordance with fhie pay scales. revised aad fixed by the respondente fioin tmie to tiiae. The reason assigned for recovery te aot sustainable, as fhere was no fault on the partof fhe husband of the petitioner. The respondents Gannot recover the aiaount, ah-eady paid to fh.e husbaud of ttie petitioQer wifhout foUowiug the priaciples of natural justice. 3. Learued counsel appearmg ifor fhe respcmdeute subiaMs that by mistake extra wages were graated to flie husbanfl df the ^ petitioner, thus, the above recoveiy. If ftie excess paynient was niade to fhe petitioner, the saine caa be recovered at fhe time of setfleiuent ofretiral dues. The respondent-authorities have not foUowed the priaciples of natural justice aad the unpugned action has been teken without affording an opporttmity of heartng to fhe petitioner. The practice of passiag order involving civil consequences, wifhout show cause notice or without afifording an opportunily, is condeinned. The issue asto whefher recoveiy ofexcess payinent for no fault ofthe employee can be niade wifhout followin.g the prmciples of natural justice is no longer res iategra. The saiae has been setfled by Hon'ble Supreiae Cottrt in various decisions. In Syed Abdul Qadir aad others TO. State of BIhar and otltws1, Hou'ble Three Judges of fhe Supreine Court, having considered aU. fhe aspects ofthe niatter aud fhe decisious rendered by fhe Suprexne Court ia the past, obseryed as under: "57. This Court, iu a catena ofdecisions, has g^anted relief agaiast recoveiy of excess payment of einoluiaents/aUoiwances if (a) the excess amount was not paid on account of any inisrepresentation or &aud on fhe part of the einployee, aad (b) if such excess payinent was inade by tfae employer by applying a WTong principle for calculatmg fhe pay/aUowance or ou fhe basis of a particular iaterpretation ofrule/order, wtuch is subsequently found to be erroneous. 58. The reUef agamst recoveiy is granted by courts not because of any right iu the einployees, but in equity, exercising judicial discretion to reUeve fhe employees fix>iu fhe hardship fhatwiU be caused ifrecovery is ordercd, But, if in a given case, it is proved that the einployee had knowledge that the payinent received was in excess of what was due or wrongly paid, or iu cases where fhe error is detected or corrected withia a sUort tuneofwrong payment, the matter beiug ia the reahn ofjudicial discretion, co-urts may, oa fhe facts and circumstances ofaay particular case, order for recoveiy of the auiouat paid in excess. See Snhib Ram v. State of Haiyana, SIiyam. Babu Verma v. Union of India, Union of India v. M. Bhaskar, V. Gaagaranl v. Director, Col. , B.J.Akkara (Retd.) v. Qovt of India, Piu-shottam Lat Das v. State ofBihar, Punjab National Baiili: v. Manjeet Singh and Bihar SEB v. Bijay Bhadur." 1(2009) 3 SCC 475 6. 7. z. ^) This Court as weU.as Hon'ble Suprenie Court in a catena of decisions, tiiae aud agam reiterates fhat no recoveiy of excess payment for no fault of fhe employee can. be made wifhout foUowuig the principles of natural justice. This Coiut in Ramchandra Kiuup Vs. State of C.G. & others!2 and ofher cormected matters, decided on 23rd Noveinber, 2009, observed as under: "19. A couunon thread ruiuiiag into the above decisions of the Supreine Court is that, for recoveiy of excess payment of einoluments/aUowances, there are three conditions wherein the excess payineut ixiay be recovered, naniely (i) excess payment was ittade on account ofmisrepresentation or fi-aud on fhe part of the einployee, (ii) the employee had knowledge that the paynient received was ia excess, and (iii) the error was corrected within a short spaa of tuae of wrong paymcnt........." In view of the forgoing, the petitioa is allowed. The nnpugned order dated 31.1.2009 (Aunexure P/l), directing recoveiy of Rs. 32,350/-, on account of excess payment made to the husband offhe petitioner, is hereby quashed. Ifthe amount has already been recovered, fhe petitioner is entitled to the said amount with interest at the ratc of 6% per annum. No order asto costs. Tbakur Sd/- SatisfaK.Agnihotri Jiidge --J