IN THE HDN'BLE THE HIGH COURT QF JUDICATURE AT BILASPUR (C.G^ W. P.fS) N0. OF 2008 PET1TIONER : ^^ ..<^..y y ^s^ 'v> -'yy <-':.^' Sriniwas Sharma, S/0 late Shri Ram Avtar Mishra, aged about 61 years OccupattQn- Retired Deputy Ranger, R/0 Viltage- IVIajhiyar, Post- Ratangawan, DEstrict- Rewa (M.P.) VERSUS RESPONDENTS : I. State of Chhattisgarh, through the Secretary , Mmistry ofForest DepartmeBt, D.K.S. Bhawan, Raipur, District - Raipur, ( C .G. ) ^^ 2. Divisional Forest Officer., Nortfa Sarguja, Forest Division, Ambikapur, District- Sarguja (C.G.) 3. Director, Treasury Accounts and Pension, Bilaspur Divisioii BiIaspur,(C,G.) 4. Assistant Director, Treasury Accounts and Pension, Bilaspur Division, Bilaspw, District- Bilaspur (C.G.) 5. Prescribed Officer(Pension) Office of Joint Director, Treasury Accoujate and Pensioit, Bilaspur Division, Bilaspw, District- Bilaspur (C.G.) WRIT PETITION U/A 226 OF THE CONSITITUTION QF INDIA HiGH COURT OF CHHATTiSQARH : BiLASPUR Sjng|©Bench: Hon^bIeShri [vlanlndra Mon^^^ PETmONcR RESPONDENTS WRIT PETiTSON (S) NG.439/2008. Shrinwas Sharrna Versus State of Chhattisgarh and others Present: - Smt. indira Tripathi, counsei for the petitioner. Shrj Pankaj Shrivastava, Panel La\werforthe State/respondents: ORAL (Passed on 15th June, 2010) This petition has been flied by the petitioner aggrieved by order Q'ated 30/04/07 (Annexure P-1) by which aileged excess payrnent rnade to the petitloner has been directed to be recovered. Petitioner has also chailenged communlcation dated 30/11/06 (Annexure P-2) by which Jolnt Director, Accounts Treasury and Pension has required the Divjslonal Forest Offlcer to rnake recovery of excess payment to the petitione?\ 2. Facts necessary for adjudication of coritroversy Invoived in the petition are that the petitioner while working as Deputy- Ranger, retired w.e.f. 31/08/06. At the time of retirernent, the basic pay ofthe petEtioner "w'as shown as Rs.6,500/-. Though gratuity and payrnent against sun'endered leave was pald, the pension of the petitioner was not frxed. Later on, petitioner received the Irnpugned communicatlon dated 30/11/06 (Annexure P-2), copy of which was endorsed to the petitioner bywhich excess payrnents are a'lrected to be recovered. /y^\ ^. ^ y i '^s^/ 7'^sey^' t^ ^< 3. SubmissiQn of iearned counsei for the peutioner is that the petitioner was granted a particuiar pay scaie on the basic of Rs.6,500/- per month and saiary was paid to hirn. Submjsslon of iearned counsei for the petitioner Es that subsequent action of making recovery of excess payment of Rs.81,197/- by aitering the basic pay of the petitioner Is iilegai, in as rnuch as petitioner was granted hiyher pay by the respondents with open eyes and Et is not a case that such recovery vvas an outcome of any fraud or mlsrepresentation. St is next urged by iearned counsel for the petitioner that after retirement, the respondent authority- coulcS not have issueu such directlons for recovery without prior sanctlon ofthe Govemor as required under Fvl.P./C.G. Pension Ruies, 1976. Last submission of iearned counsei for the petltioner Is that under any circumstances, such an action of recovery jnvolves adverse civij consequences and therefore it ought to precede an inquiry' by affordiny the petitioner due and appropriate opportunjfry of hearlng. 4. . Per contra, submission of learned counsei for respondents is that in view of communication dated 10/03/2000, rnade by Additionai Prindpal Chief Conservator of Forest (Administration/Non-Gazetled), Qovemment of M.P., it -w-as ordereu that pay fixation of Deputy Ranger frorn the ye-ar 1987 tili the date of superannuauon Is required to be recaiied and payr?ients made In excess to be recovered, as instead of their entitiement of basic pay of Rs.6,125/-, they have been -vvrongiy paid basic pay' of Rs.6,500/-. Learned counsei for respondents subrnits that having given consent for such a recoveiy, in case excess payments are made, petitioner is estopped frorn objecting to recovery. Once It has been found that excess payments hav^ been rnade to the petitioner. it is subniitted ^I^ §:'.. / s "\ "^^' •^^ that as the petitioner was wrongiy paid excess amount. there is no iiiegaiity in the action and recovery is in accordance vyith iaw and does not caii for interference. 5. have heard iearned counsei for the parties and perused the records. 6. Frorn the order dated 27/07/98 (Annexure P-3), "it is clear that after consideratjon of petitioner's representation, petitioner was granted seniority and piaced beiuw Arnbika Pr-asad Mishra at serial rso,9. Frorn the ietter dated 10/03/2000 (Annexure R-1) issued from the office of Addliionai Principai Chief Conseivator of Forest (Administration/Non-Gazetted) M.P., It Is found that later on authorities forrned an opinlon th-at seniority is required to be revised "whereupon the recovery order vyas issued vide Annexure P-2« it is not the case of the respondents that there was any fraud or misrepresentatlon on the part of the petitloner. The respondents after due consideratlon of petltioners representatlon carne to the conclusion that the petitioner is entltled to senlority- as ciairned by him and therefore benefit of pay fixation on the post of Deputy Ranger 'was conferred. Under these csrcumstances, whatever has been pald to ttie petitioner could not be recovered. it Is not a case that at the urne when higher payments were rnade, petitioner or the department knew that it was not admissibie to hirn. On the contrary, grant of hlgher pay was based on consideration of petiuoner's representation and issuance of order dated 27/07/98. rvloreover, it is ciear that vvhiie olrectlng such recovery, no opportunifry' of hearing was aiforded to the petitioner. in the case of Vashistha Tiwari v. The State of Chhattjsgarh and others, W.P^S) No.31S1 of 2009, facts of which 'were qulte simiiar to the facts of the present case. jt was heid - "6. The Supreme Court as weii as this Court In a catena of decisions. tirne and again reiterates that no recoveiy of excess ^'"'^' ^vy^ j .:'>^/ 4 payment for no fauit of the ernptoyee can be made wlthout foilowing the principles of naturai justioe. This Court in RsimchQndrsi Kump v. State of C.G. & Othws and other connected rnatters, observed as under: "19. A common thread running Into the above decissons of the Supreme Court Is that, for recovery of excess payment of emoluments/aiiowances, there are three conditions whereln the excess payment may be recovered, nameiy (1) excess payment was rnade on account of misrepresentation or fraud on She part of the ^mpSoy^^, (IJ) the sniployee had knowjedge that tha payment received w'ao in excess, and (iii) the error vvas corrected within a short span of tlme of wrong payment....." 7. in view of the foregoing, this petition is aliowed. Consequentiy, order d-ated 30/04/07 (Annexure P-1) and order dated 30/11/0o (Annexure P-2) to the exlent recoveries made are set aside. The amount If recovered from the petitioner, snaii be refunded. PetitEoner wouid be entitled to penslonary benefits and yratuity arTsount, wltnout any deductlon, in accordance "with law\ No order as to costs. Sd/- Manindra Mohan Shrivastava Judge