. Oé PETITIONER AA ‘ 0 O O HHATI'ISGAR I A R DISTRICT RAIPUR ( ) MELT 11 PRK-SH KHOKHALE, AGED — 6 YEARS S/O SHRI WAMAN RA KHOKHALE RETIRED - SENIOR C OPERATIVE INSPECTO FM O/O THE REGITR CO OPERATIVE SOCIETIE CH R/O SADAR BAZA BEHIND JAIN MANDIR GAL BUDHAPAR RAIPU C G VERSUS STATE OF CHHATTsGARH, THROUGH - THE SECRETAR DEPARTMENT OF c OPATIVE SOIETIE MANTRALA D S BHAWA RAIPUR THE REGISTRA co OPERATIVE SOCIETIE CHHATrISGARH HEAD QUARTER RAIPUR (C G ) 3. THE JOINT DIRECTOR TREASURY ACCOUNT AND PENSION RAIPUR DIVISION RAIPUR (C G ) WRIT PETITION (s1 No. E [( OF 2009 R RO SAR S R - I Y o ER CS Y K N R S ijEGH COURT O? CHHATTISGARH :BJLASPUR WRIT PET§T§ON 18) NO. 74Q6 o? 20” $ (Wrii Petition under Amcie 226 of the Conséimtion of mdz‘a) S§ng5e Bench : Hon’bie Shri Satish K. Agnihotri, J. Present :— Shn‘ R.K.Kesharwani, counsel for the pemioner. Shri N.N.Roy, Pane! Lawyer fo‘r the Statefrespandents. ORDER {ORAL} (Passed m this 17m day of December! 2009) With the consent of iearned counse! appearing for the parties, the petition is heard finatly. The pett'zioner, working as Senior Cooperative inspector, retired from service on attainirig the age of superannuation on 31.3V2DS9 from the office 0f Registrar; Cooperative Societies; Chhatiisgarh. After retirement; without any intimation or netiee, the iast pay certificate dated 20.10.2OOQ (Annexure PM) was issued; which is imnugneci herein, whereby a sum ot Re. 55,G45f— has been deducted treating it to be excess payment made to the petitioner during the course of hie emoioyment. Thus, this petition. 3. Learned oouneei appearing tor the petitioner submits that the iseue eeto whether recovery oi exceee pelment for no fault of the emptoyee can he made without toiiowing principles of naturai iuetice ie no ienger res integral the eame has been e'ettied by the Supreme Court in the matter of Sahib Ram v, State of Haryana and other/3’, and further foiiowed by this Court in the matter of Vidyadhar Tiwaii (Supra). in the instant case, the impugned order has been passed without affording any opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. Learned oounsei appearing for the State/respondents retiee on Rule ' $5 of the Chhattisgarh Civii Services (Pension) Ruies, 1W5 {for v1 \__ \c\\ f toes Supp (i) soc 2o PEmaONEé Prakash Khok'na:e. Versus RESPONDENTS Siaie Gevemment of \ &Anaiher short ‘the Ruies, 1976’) for the purpose of recovery and adjustment of Government dues. The contention of the petitioner that even for exercising power under Rule 65 of the Ruies, 1976, basic principles of naturai justice and fair piay in action are required to be foiiowed. in the present case, the Stateiauthorities have not afforded any opportunity of hearing to the petitioner to put forward his case asto why the deduction from the gratuity amount being excess amount cannot be made. The contention of the iearned counsei for the petitioner merits acceptance. This Court, in Vidyadhar Tiwan' (supra); has held that the excess payment, if any, made to the petitioner, he was not at tautt and the amount received by him might have been used by adjusting himself accordingiy treating the same as his salary. At this stage, directing recovery of the aiieged excess amount from the pensionary benefits/gratuity amount of the petitioner wilt not be just and proper. in Syed Abdul Qadir & others v. State of Bihar & Others2, the Supreme Court observed that excess payment of emoiuments/ aliowances cannot be recovered if the excess amount was not paid on account of any misrepresentation or fraud on the part of the employee and if such excess payment was made by the empioyer by applying a wrong principle for caiculating the pay/aliowances or on the basis of a particuiar interpretation of rule/order, which is subsequentiy found to be erroneous. it is not the case of the respondents that the excess payment has been made to the petitioner on account of any misrepresentation or fraud on the part of the petitioner. The excess payment might have been made by wrong caiculation or wrong interpretation of the provisions of iaw, if any. The Supreme Court as weli as this Court in a catena of decisions, time and again reiterates that no recovery of excess payment for no 2009) 3 SCC 475 \ @ fauit of the employee can be made wiihcut foHowing the principies of natural 3‘ust§ce. This Court in Ramchandra Kurup v. Stafe of C.G. & Ofhers3 and other connected matters, observed as under: “19. A common tnyead running into the above decisions of the $upreme Court is that, for recovery of excess payment of emoluments/altowances, there are three conditions wherein the excess payment may be recovered, nameiy (t) excess payment was made on account of misrepresentation or fraud on the part of the empieyee, (ii) the employee had knowiedge that the payment received was tn excess, and (iii) the error was corrected within a short span of time of wrong payment ...... " in view of foregoing, this petition is aiiowed. The impugned order dated 20.10.2009 (Annexure — PM) regarding recovery of Rs.55,045/- from the retirai dues of the petitioner is hereby quashed. The petitioner is entitied to fuii pensionary benefits/gratuity amount without any deduction. if the said amount is aiready deducted, the same shaii be payabie to the petitioner with simple interest @ 6% per annum. No order asto costs. Sd/— . Satish K; Agnihotn Judge 3 WP (S) N03663: of 2309 decided on 23-1 'i 2809 ~