Wlw IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WRIT PETITION (5.) N0.§2XS<..>..../2010 Ganga Prasad Dhankar, Son of LaTe Kripa Ram Dhankar, aged 65 years (ReTir'ed Assistam‘ Teacher), ResidenT of Village Rengakm‘hera, Tahsil Gunderdehi, DisTricT Durg (C.G.), VERSUS RESPONDENTS STaTe of ChhaT‘risgar'h, Through : ITs Secretary, Tribal Welfare Deparfmem‘, D.K.5.'Bhawan, ManTralaya, Raipur (C.6.). Join‘l’ Direcfor, Divisional Office Treasury, AccounTs and Pensions, BasTar Division, Jagdalpur, DisTricT BasTar (C.G.) The AssisTan’r Commissioner, Tribal Welfare DeparTmenT, Jagdalpur, DisTricT Jagdalpur (C.G.), The Block EducaTion Officer, Narayanpur, Tahsil and Distric’r Narayanpur (C.G,), WRITPETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE COUNSTITUTION OF INDIA. The PeTiTioner‘slabomampd mn<Ln¢mn~iLuJMuhmIm¢W HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH B!LA8PUR .7 (Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India) Singie Bench z Hon’ble Shri Satish K. Agnihotri, J. Present :- Shri R S Patet Advocate for the petitioner Shrt A V Shndhar Panel Lawyer for the $tate ORDER (Passed on 10 day of March 2011) 1. Chatlenge m this petition is to the order dated 21 11 2007 (Annexure Pit) whereby, a sum of Rs 31 439l- has been directed to be recovered from the retrial dues of the petrtioner hotdrng it to be excess payment made toothe petitioner during the course of his service. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner,;while‘wprking as Assistant Teacher in the $choot Education Department,‘retired from service 30.09.2007 on attaining the age of ‘ superannuation. According to the petitioner, the impugned recovery has been made without affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, and further, the issue asto whether recovery of excess payment can be made without foliowingprinciples of nature! justice is no longer ‘res integra, the same has been settled by the Supreme Court in the matter of Sahib Ram v. State ofHarya’na and others’, and further followed by'this Court in the matter of Vidyadhar Tiwan‘ v. The State of Chhattisgam & Othersz and Vidya Shankar Tiwari .v. Stataof MP. (Now State of Chhata'sgam) and ofhers3 and thereafter followed in severaldecisions. ’ 3. ' This Court in Ramchandra Kurup v. State of 6.6. & Others‘ and other connected matters observed as under “19 A common thread running Into the above decrsrons of the Supreme Court is that for recovery of excess payment of emoluments/allowances, there ‘ 1995 Supp (1) soc 1a 2 2006 (1 ) MPHT 105 (0G) 3 2006 (2) MPHT 31 (CG) 4 2010 (3) CGLJ 400 r l l i PETmONER Ganga Prasad Dhankar M) Versus RESPONDENTS State of Chhattisgarh 8. Others 2 are three conditions whereln the excess payment may be recovered namely (i) excess payment was, made on account of misrepresentation or fraud on the part of the employee, (it) the employee had knowledge that the payment received was in excess, and (iii) the error was corrected within a short span of time of wrong payment ...... " Learned counsel appearing for the State/respondents does not .controvert the submissions made by leamed counsel for the petitioner and submits that this matter may be disposed of in the same terms - 5. . _ In View of the foregoing and as admitted by leamed counsel appearing for the parties, this petition is disposed of in the terms of the order - passed in the case of Remchendre Kurup ie the impugned order p‘r ‘ t dated 21 11 2097 (Annexure P/1) regarding recovery of an amount of :Rs 31 439/- from the retrial dues of the petitioner on account of excess payment is hereby quashed The petitioner is entitled to full i ‘ pensmnary benefits/gratwty amount Without any deduction If the amount has been recovered the petitioner is entitled to the said “amount In view of foregoing, if the pension of-the petitioner has not-been settled till date,1the authorities are directed to settle the pension of the ‘ petitioner and grant benefit of the’same, as expeditiously as possible,‘ ‘ 'in accordance with law and on‘its own merits; ' r w “3:“ " v“ ' Sdl- SATISH K. AGNIHOTRI Judge