w la’7Z/\ <9 (a mNGLE MNEH IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR w.P. s No. (74% OF 2011. /. Manglu Ram Mali, S/o.-1ate Shri Righu Ram Mali, aged about 69 years, Retired Head Master, R/o. Village ‘Bijlipara, Charama, Post Charama, Block Charama, District Kanker (C. G.). PETITIONER VERSUS / RESPONDENTS . :l. State of Chhattisgarh, Through : The Secretary, Tribal Welfare Department, D.K.S. Bhawan,‘Raipur (C. G.) 2. ’/ Divisional, Joint Director, Treasury, Accounts .and Pension, Division Jagdalpur, District Bastar (C. G.) 3’?” Block Education Officer, Charama, Block Charama, District Kanker (C.G.) WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PETITIONER HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH : BILASPUR WRIT PETITION (S) NO. 343 OF 2011 Manglu Ram Mali Versus State of Chhattisgarh & Others (Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of india) Single Bench : Hon'bie Shri Satish K. Agnihotri, J. Present :— Shri Somkant Verma, Advocate for the petitioner. _ ShriY.S.Thakur, Dy.’ Advocate Generai for the state. RESPONDENTS ORDER (ORALI (Passed on this 21 day of January, 201 1) By the present petition, the petitioner challenges the order dated 29.10.2004 (Annexure P/1), whereby a sum of Rs.21,612l- has been deducted from the retiral dues of the petitioner, holding it to be excess payment made to the petitioner, during the oou'rse of his service. 2. Shri Verma, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner, working as Head Master, retired from service on attaining the age of superannuation on 31.12.2003. During the course of settlement of retiral dues, a sum of Rs. 21,612l- was deducted holding it to be excess payment made to the petitioner during the course of his service. 3. Shri Verma, further submits that the issue asto whether recovery of excess payment for no fault of the employee can be made without following theprinciples of natural justice is no longer res integra. I The same has been settled by Hon’ble Supreme Court in various decisions (See Syed Abdul Qadlr and others v. State of Bihar and others’). This Court, relying on the above decisions has 1 (2009) 3 scc 475 F‘ v , - ‘ Wmmmmwmmm qp passed several orders‘ directing refund of the amount, if any, recovered from the emptoyees, where the employees were not given any opportunity to explain about the excess payment, if any, . made to them. Shri Verma, further contends that any recovery from retirai dues can be made only in case if there was any misrepresentation or fraud on the part of the employee and the employee had knowledge that the payment was reCeived in excess. The error, if any, could have been corrected within a short span of time from wrong payment. Learned counsel appearing for the respondents does not dispute b the above submission made by leamed counsel appearing for the petitioner. However, he submits that the similar order may be passed, subject to verification of facts. 5. This Court, as well as 'Hon’ble Supreme Court, in a catena of decisions, time and again reiterated that no recovery of excess payment for no fault of the employee can be made without following the principles of natural justice. This Court in Ramchandra Kurup v. State of 6.6. & omersz and other connected matters, decided on 23" November, 2009, observed as unden “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 af misrepresentation or fraud on the part of the employee, hi) the employee had knowledge that the payment received was in excess, and mi) the error was corrected within a short span of time of wrong payment.......... " 2w.P.(S) No. 3663 or 2009 3 In view of ioregoing, the‘impugned‘ order dated 29.10.2004 (Annexure P/1) directing recovery Rs.21,612/- on account of excess payment made to the petitioner, is hereby quashed. if the amount has already been recovered, the petitioner is entitled to the said amount with interest at the rate of 6% per annum, subject to . veritication of facts. However, liberty is reserved to the State/respondents that if the excess payment has been made on account of misrepresentation or fraud on the part of the empioyee, or the empioyee had the knowiedge that the payment received by him was in excess, fresh orders may be issued on verification of the facts, after affording opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of. No order asto costs. ashok Sdl— Satish K. Agnihotri Judge