IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CHHATTISGARH [^9ty/. PETITIONER ,.-•<. W. P.(sl N0. .....I....L..<..7./2008 rElvina Bhan , W/o Lat Shri Chatur Bhan Jt..<; A.^^: .^%:^":..--" Q^ .."'" ^ Aged about 64 years, R/o Near Rajive Gandhi Navin Primary School Jarhabhata Bilaspur (C.G.) VERSUS RESPONDENTS ••^' ^ State of Chhattisgarh through: Secretary School Education Department, D.K.S. Bhawan, Raipur District Education Officer Bilaspur, ^y^ ^ ^ District Bilaspur C.G. >OV'' .Y\>y?X^K^- Joint Director, Treasuiy Accounts & ^ Pension, Bilaspur Division, Bilaspur C.G. 4. Block Development Education Officer, Bilha District-Bilaspur C.G. ..•'"'' Principal Government Girls Primary School, Chakarbhata (Camp), Bilaspur, C.G. WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA S J k mGHCOURTOFCHHAmSGARH AT BILASPUR WRFT PETmON (S} No. 1494 of2008 PETITIONER : ElvmaBhan, VE.RSUS RESPONDENTS : State ofChhattisgarh & Others. WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITLmON OF INDIA SB: H—'1'1-Shri Satish K. Agmhotri, J, Present: Shri Somkant Vei-ma, Advocate for the petitioner. Sliri N.N.Roy, Panel La^/yer for the State/respondents. ORALORDER (Passed on 11th day of March, 2010) With the consent of leamed counsel appearmg for the paities, the matter is heard tmally. 1. Notices were issued to the respondents cn 7.3.2008. Thereafier, the matter was listed for hearing on 31.7.2008 aiid again three weeks tiine was granted to the State/responclents to file retum. The respondents have failcd to file any reply till date. 2. Challenge m this petition is to the order dated 31.7.2006 (.^me: re P/8) whereby it has been directed to recover a sum of Rs. 3,15,26t9/- from the retiral dues of the petitioner, holding it to be excess payment made to the petitioner, durmg the course ofher service. 3. Sltd Verma, leamed counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner; working as Assistant Teacher, retired fi'om send'ce teft attainmg the age of superajmuation on 30.04.2006. The petitioner received a communication dated 31.7.2006 (Armexure P/8) issued by the respondent No. 3 whereby it has been directed to recover a sum of Rs. 3J5,269/- from the retiral dues of the petitioner holdmg it to be excess payment made to the petitioner, durmgthe course ofher sendce. 4. Shri Venna farther submits that the issue asto whether recoveiy of excess payment for no fault of the employee can be made without fbUowing the prmciples ofiiaturaljustics is no longer res integra. The same has been setlled by Hon?ble Supreme C-oml: in various decisioxis (See SyedAbdul Qu&r others v. Stute of Bih.ar and otheifs ). Tliis Couit relymg on the- above 1 (2009) 3 SC.C 475 Aniit decisions has passed several orders, dii'ectmg refund of the amount, if any^ recovered from the employees, where the smployees were not given any oppoitunity to explain about the excess payment if any, made to them. Shri Slirivasta^/a farther contends that any recove^ from retiral clues can be made only m case if there was any misrepresentation or traud on the part of the employee and the employee had knowledge that the pa^Tient was received m excess. The error, if any; could have been coiTected withm a short spaii of thne from wrong payment. 5. Leamed counsel appearmg for the respondents does not dispute the above submission made by leamed counsel appearmg for the petitioner. However, he submits that the similar order may be passed, subject to verification offacts. 6. This Court, as well as Hon'ble Supreme Court, m a catena of decisions, time and agairi reiterated that no recoveiy of excess payment for no fault of the employee can be made without following the prmciples ofnaturaljustice. This Couil; in Ram-chandra Kurup v. St{sl.€ofC.G. & other^ and other comiected matters, decided on 23 November, 2009, obsewed as under: "19. A common tlii'ead mnning into the above decisions of the Supreme Court is that, for recoveiy of excess payiTient of emoluments/allowances, there are tliree conditions wherein the excess payment may be recoverecl, namely (i) excess payment was siiade on account of misrepresentation or fmud on the part ofthe employee, (ii) the employee had Imowledge that the payment received was in excess, and (iii) the eiTor was coiTected within a short span of tiine of wrong payment.........." 7. In view ofthe forgoing, the iinpugned order dated 31.7.2006 (.4jmexure P/8) cfaecting recovery' Rs. 3,155269/- on account of excess payment made to the petitionen is hereby quashed. ff' the amount has ali'eady been recovered, the petitioner is entitled to flie said amount with mterest at the rate of 6% per aimum, subject to verification offacts. 8. However, liberty is resen'red to the State/respondents that if the excess payment has been made on account of misrepresentation or fraud on the part of the employee, or the employee had the knowledge that the payment received by her was in excess, fresh orders may be issued on vertfication of the facts, after affbrcimg oppoi-timity ofhearing to the petitioner. 9. The writ petition is accordmgly disposed of 10< No order asto costs. Sd/- SatishK.Agnihotn Judge 2W.P.(S)No.3663of2-