BEFORE THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPHR (ad ' OF 2011 Daneshwaf; Ram S/o Ran} Shri w.P.(S) No. Q95 90> PETITIONER Pfasad, Agied about 67 Years, VillaEge Budha Bagicha Post Rajpur District Sarguja (C.G.) fr VERSUS 1. RESPONDENTS State of Chhattisgarh Through n The- Secretary Tribal and welfare Department, D.K.S. Bhawan Raipur (C.G.) Assistant Commissioner Tribal and welfare Department Ambikapur ,. (C.G.) Joint Director Treasury and Pension Ambikapur District Sarguja (C.G) WRIT PETITON UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE‘ CONTITUTION OF INDIA FOR ISSUANCE ‘OF WRIT OR MANDAMUSIDIRECTION OF OTHER APPROPRIATE WRIT. : HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WRIT PETITION (S) No. 2479 of2011 PETITIONER : Daneshwar Ram. . VERSUS 'RESPONDENTS ‘ : State ofChh ttisgarh & Others. ' WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF 'I ) CONSTITUTION OF INDIA of the petitioner for the alleged excess payment made to the: ‘ L petitioner and naither, to recover an amount of Rs. 29717/- from: the petitioner and to‘send a certificate in this regard. According to Shri'Verma, the impugled recovery has been made without an‘ording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, and further, the issue asto whether recovery of excess payment can be made: I without following principles of natural justice is no longer resl integra, the same has been settled by the Supreme Court in the matter of SahibrRain v. State ofHaryana and others], and further, fellowed bythis Court in the matter of Vidyadhar Tiwarz' v. The State ofChhattisgarh & Others2 and Vidya Shankar Tiwari v. State 1 A a 1 i995 stipp (.1) SCC 18. 2 2006 (mt/mm" 105 (CG). m’- . SB: Hon’ble $1111 Satish K. enihotri, J. i I PreSent: Shri Somkam Verma’, Advocate for the petitioner. ; Shri A.V.Shridhar, Panel Lawyee for the State/respondents. ORDER (ORAL (Passed on ()9 day of Mlay, 2011) 1._ By thisrpetition,-the petitioner seeks 'quashing of order dated: I 27.06.2006 (Annexure P/l) and‘ Ihrther, a direction to the respondents to refund the amount recovered by the respondent :3 authorities from his retiral dues, with interest. 2. Shri Verma, learned'counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner, while working as Head Master, :retired on attaining the age of superannuation on 31.12.2005. Shri Vermat further submits that the District Treasury Otiicer, Ambikapur- was i i . ‘ directed to deduct an amount of'Rs. 25130/— from the retiral dues a} . 2 ofMP. (Now State of Chhattisgarh) and others3 and thereafte followed in several decisions. This Court in Ramchandra Kurup v State ofC.G. & Others4 and other connected matters, observed as nder: “19. A'common thread running into the above decisions ofthe Supreme lourt is that, for recovery of excess payment of emoluments/allowances, there are three conditioxs wherein thewexcess payment may be recoveied, namely (i) excess payment was made on account of misrepresentation or fraud on the part of the employee, (ii) the employee had knowledge rat the payment received was in excess, and (iii) the error was corrected within a short span oftime of wrong payment ...... " Learned counsel appearing for the State/respondents does not controvert the submissions made Eby learned counsel for the t petitioner and submits that this matter may be disposed of in the SamB tems. In View of the foregoing and as admitted by learned counsel appearing for the parties, this petition is-disposed of in the terms of i z the order passed in the case of Ramchandra Kump". Le. the ‘ impugned order dated 27.6.2006‘ (Annexure P/l) is quashed. The i petitioner is entitled to full ‘pensionary benefit without any‘ deduction. If the .amoUnt, as aforestated, has already been recovered, the petitioner is entitled to reiiind ofthe said amount. However it is open to the respondents to take recourse to Rule 65 of the Chhatt1sgarh C1V11 Servrces (Pensron) Rules 1976 if so ‘ adv1sed 1n accordance Wlth law atter followrng bas1c pr111c1ples of natural ustice. Sd/- ,, 3 2006 (2tMPHT 31 (CG) e " 47010r3) GLI400 ‘« ‘ \ “u r J ‘ .t I