SINQLE @ENELW (D IN THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF CHHATrIsGARH AT BILASPUMCQ.) WRIT PETITION (S) N0. 10 92/ OF 2011 z 3. The Joint Director, Treasury, Accounts & Pension, Biiaspur, District Biiaspur (C.G.). 4. The Joint Director, Treasury, Accounts & Pension, Ambikapur, District Surguja (C.G.). /5. The Treasury Officer, Treasury, Accounts & Pension, Ambikapur, District Surguja (C.G.). WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA 1i? j i mm WWW iwmmmimum WWm”WmmmmwwmWmmimm PETITIONER : / Vikramaditya Pandey Son of Late Shri Laldhari Pandey, aged about (93 64 years, Retired Deputy Ranger, WW3” Resident of Bauripara Shikari Road, Ambikapur, District Surguja (C.G.). VERSUS RESPONDENTS : / 1. State of Chhattisgarh, through: the Secretary, Department of Forest, D.K.S. Bhawan, Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.). The Divisional Forest Officer, East Surguja Division, Ambikapur, District Surguja (C.G.). HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH : BILASPUR WRIT PETITION (S) NO.1072 OF 2011 PETITIONER Vikramaditya Pandey Versus State of Chhattisgarh & Others (Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India) Single Bench : Hon’ble Shri Satish K. Agnihotri, J. Present :~ Shri V.K. Pandey, Advocate for the petitioner. Shri Y.S. Thakur, Dy. Adv. General for the State. RESPONDENT ORDER (ORAL)v (Passed on this 24‘“ day of February, 20‘1 1) The petitioner, while working as Deputy Ranger, retired from service on 31.1.2007 on attaining the age of superannuation. The petitioner is aggrieved by the order dated 31.10.2007, whereunder a sum of ? 37,918l- has been directed to be deducted from the pensionary benefits, holding it to be excess payment made to the petitioner during the course of his service. According to the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, the impugned recovery has been made without affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, and further, the issue asto whether recovery of excess payment can be made without following principles of natural justice is no longer res integra, the same has been settled by the Supreme Court in the matter of Sahib Ram v. State of Haryana and others’, and further followed by this Court in the matter of Vidyadhar Tiwari v. The State of Chhatt/‘sgarh & Othersz and Vidya Shankar Tiwari v. State of MP. (Now State of Chhattisgarh) and others3 and thereafter followed in several decisions. This. Court in Ramchandra Kurup v. State of CG. & Others" and other connected matters, observed as under : I 1995 Supp(1) scc 18 ' 2 3 2006 (1) MPHT 105 (CG) 4 2006 (2) MPHT 31 (CG) 2010 (3) CGLJ 400 “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 may be recovered, namely (i) excess payment was made 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 ...... " Learned counsel appearing for the State/respondents does not controvert the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioner and submits that this matter may be disposed of in the same terms. ln view of the foregoing and as admitted by learned counsel appearing for the parties, this petition is disposed of in the'terms of the order passed in the case of Ramchandra Kurup". i.e. the impugned order dated 31.10.2007 (Annexure P/4) regarding recovery of amount of ? 37,918I- from the retrial dues of the petitioner on account of excess payment, is hereby quashed. The petitioner is entitled to full pensionary benefits/gratuity amount without any deduction. lf the amount has been recovered, the petitioner is entitled to the said amount. However, it is open to the respondents to take recourse to Rule 65 of the Chhattisgarh Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1976, if so advised, in accordance with law, after following basic principles of natural justice. Sd/- Satish K. Agnihotri Judge