Amended Petitlon IN THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR W.P.ISINO. 5600/2009 (S.B.l PETITIONERS< RESPONDENTS 1. Dhola Ram S/o Janak Ram, aged about 62 years, retired Head Master, R/o VUlage- Magaruchhala, Post Sarwani, Via Bilha, District Bilaspur (C.G.) VERSUS 1. Stateof Chhattisgarh Through :- The Secretary, Tribal Welfare Department, D.K.S. Bhawan, Raipur (C.G.) 2. Assistant Commissioner, Tribal Welfare Department, Distt.- Bilaspur (C.G.) 3. .Principal, Govt. Girls Higher Secondary School Marwahi, District Bilaspur (C.G.) WRITPEWnoN UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE A. CONSTITUTIONOF INDIA. The petitioner named above begs to submit as under :- 1. PARTICULARS OF THE PETITIONER As given in the above cause title. fflGH COUR.T OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR PE'nTIONER WMTPETmONrsy No. 5600 of 2009 Dhola Ram. VERSUS State ofChhattisaarh & Others. RE3PONDENTS : WRITPET.mON UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA SB: HoB'ble Sbri Satish K. Asnihotri.J. Present: Shri Somkant Verma, Advocate for the petitioner. Shri N.N.Roy, Pansl Lawyerforthe State/respondents. ORAL ORUER (Passed on 23rli day of February, 2010) With the consent of leamed counsel appearing for the parties, the matter is heard finally. 1. Challenge in this petition is to the order dated 20.04.2009 (Annexure P/l) whereby thepetitioner has been directed to deposit a sum ofRs. 48,410/- in the treasury and submit a copy of ehallan, holding it to be excess payment made to the petitioner, during the course ofhis service. 2. Shri Verma, leamed counsel appearingfor the petitioner submite Uiat the petitioner, working as Head Master, retired from service on attaming the age of superannuation in the month of March, 2009. The petitioner received a communication dated 20.04.2009 (Amiexure P/l) issued by the respondent No.3 directmgthepetitionertodepositasumofRs. 48,410/-in the treasury holding it to be excess payment made to the petitioner, during the course ofhis service. 3. Shri Verma fiirfher submits that the issue asto whether recovery of excess payment for no fault of the employee can be made without following the principles of natural justice is no longer res integra. The same has been settled by Hon'ble Supreme Court in various decisions (See Syed Abilul Qadir and others v Sta& ofBihar and other^). This Court, relylng on the above decisions has passed sesveral orders, directingrefand ofthe amount, ifany, recovered from the employees, where the employees were not given any opportunity to explain about the excess payment, ifany, made to them. Shri Shrivastava further contends that any recovery fr(im retiral dues can A< *(2009).3SCC475 .2 c? A< AmiE be made only in case if there was any misrepresentation or fraud on the partofthe employee and the employee had knowledge that the payment was received in excess. The error, ifany, could have been corrected within a short span oftime fi-om wrong payment. 4. Leamed counsel appearing for the respondents does not dispute the above submission made by leamed counsel appearing for tfae petitioner. However, he submits fhat the similar order may be passed, subject to verification offacts. 5. This Court, as well as Hon'ble Supreme Court, in a catena of decisions, time and again reiterated that no recovery ofexcess payment for no fault of the employee can be made without following the principles of natural justice. This Court in Ramchandra Kurup v. State ofC.G. & othws and other conneeted matters, decided on 23 November, 2009, observed as under: "19. A conamon thread running into the above decisions of the Supreme Court is that, for recovery of excess payment of emoluments/allowances, there are three eonditions whereinthe excess payment may be recovered, tiamely (i) excess payment was made on account of misrepresentation or fraud on the part of ithe employee, (ii) the employee had knowledge that the payment received was in excess, and (iii) the error was corrected within a short span oftime ofwrong payment." 6. In view of the forgoing, the impugned order dated 20.04.2009 (Annexure P/l) directing recovery Rs. 48,410/- on aecount ofexcess payment made to the petitioner, is hereby quashed. Ifthe amount has already been recovered, the petitioner is entitled to the said amount with interestat the rate of6% per annum, subject to verification offacts. 7. However, liberty is reserved to the State/respondents that if the exeess payment has been made on account of misrepresentation or fraud on the part ofthe employee, or the employee Uad tfae knowledge that the payment received by her was in excess, fresh orders may be issued on verification of the facts, after affording opportumty ofhearing to the petitioner. 8. The writ petition is accordingly disposedof. 9. No order asto costs. Sat^K-A^notrl W.P<S)No. 3663 of 2009