^ CifcSRI ^i^'^'^su° . ^?.. IN THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISHGARH AT BILASPUR (C.G.) W.P.fS) No. 1M 7 / Petitioner >° -.--'lv^ .^i^- r^ •^ ..<-"^k'u\'^^ ^^y Heeralal Dhomane aged 63 years Son ofJhaduram Soni, Retd. Head Master, Govt. Boys Primary School, Dongargaon, Tah. Dongargaon, R/o Killapara Ward No.2, Dongargaon, Distt. Rajnandgaon.(C.G.) Versus Respondents 1 ^" ^"! /r ''JW.^lji^. /.'•*•'/ I f ••^ l^S^"3' svsy^ / •'•' 1 '^/io^ iC' '-'SWj •;••- State Government of Chhattishgarh, Through the Secretary, /School Education Department, D.K.S.Bhavan, Raipur (C.G.) 2. Divisional Joint Director, Kosh, Lekha and Pension, Raipur CG • 3. District Treasury Officer, ,/ . ' Rajnandgaon. Writ Petition under ArticleJ226^of the Constitution of India for issuance of writ of IVLandamus/direction or any other apDroDriate writ. A\° '^v J' HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH : BILASPUR Writ Petition (S) No. 124 of 2010 Petitioner Heralal Dhomane Versus Respondents State Government of Chhattisgarh 85 others WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA (SB: Hon'ble Shri Satish K. Agnihotri J.) Shri Shyam Shrivastava, Advocate for the petitioner. Shri N. N. Roy, Panel Lawyer for the respondents. QRDER(Qral) (Passed on this lltbdayofJanuary, 2010) 1. With the consentof the parties, the matter is heard finally. 2. Challenge in this petition is to the order dated 29.1.2009 (Annexure P/1), whereby a sum of Rs. 36,030/- (Rupees Thirty- sfat Thousand and Thirty) towards excess payment made to the petitioner has been directed to be recovered from the retiral dues. 3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the issue asto whether recovery of excess payment for no fault of the employee can be made without following fhe principles of natural justice is no longer res integra. The same has been settled by Hon'ble Supreme Court in various decisions (See Syed Abdul Qadir and others vs. State ofBihar and others1). This Court, relying on the above decisions has passed several orders, directing refund of the amount, if any, recovered from the employees, where the employees were not given any opportunity to explain about the excess payment, if any, made to themi. 4. Leamed counsel appearing for the respondents does not dispute - the above submission made by learned counsel appearing for the petitioner. However, he submits that the similar order may be passed, subject to verification offacts. * (2009) 3 SCC 475 1 6. Thakur This Court as well as Hon'ble Supreme Court in a catena of decisions, time and again reiterates that no recovery of excess payinent for no fault of the employee can be made without following the principles of natural justice. This Court in Ramchandra Kurup Vs. State of C.G. & others2 and other connected matters, decided on 23rd November, 2009, observed as under: "19. A common thread running into the above decisions of the Supreme Court is that, for recovery of excess payment of enioluments/allowances, there are three conditions wherein the excess payinent 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 receiyed was in excess, and (iii) the error was con-ected within a short span of time of wrong payment.........." In view of the settled position of law on the point, fhe petition deserves to be and is allowed. Accordingly, the impugned order dated 29.1.2009 (Annexure P/l), directing recovery of Rs. 36,030/-, on account of excess payment inade to the petitioner, is hereby quashed. If the amount has already been recovered, the petitioner is entitied to the said ainount with interest at the rate of 6% per annum, subject to verification of facts. No order asto costs. Sd/- SATISH K. AGNMOTM Judge [i^.,tii]iauuMAuu.,