® x S§§§§2§1E EENW IN THE HON’LBEL HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR vv. PT (S) No. gun/6 /201o w, Valeshawar Prasad Dubey S/o Shri K‘PDubey PETITIONER aged about— 66 years, Retd. Assistant Teacher, BTock — Rajnandgaon, District— Rajnandgaon (CG) ,v Versus State of I Chhattisgarh, Through:- RESPONDENTS The Secretary, Education Department, D.K.S. Bhawan Raipur, Distt.» Raipur 2. District Education Officer, Rajnandgaon, Di$trict~ Rajnandgaon (CG) Block Education Officer, Rajnandgaon, District» Rajnandgaon (CG) Deputy Director, Treasury, Accounts and Pension Department, Raipur Division District— Raipur (CG) Treasury Officer, Rajnandgaon, District Rajnandgaon (CG) f OW VVRIT PETITION UND CONSTITUTION OF INDIA. ”FE! RTICLE 226 OF THE E ‘ HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH : BiLgSPUR WRIT PE‘HTION {S} NO. 6426 OF 2610“ Kuleshawar Prasad Dubey ‘PETlTfONER Versus RESPONDENTS State of Chhaftisgarh & 0%hers (Writ Single Peiiiion Bench under : Ho?§’bie Articie 226 $hri of Satish we Constitution K. Agnéhctri, of J. india) Present :- Shri Basanf Dewangan, Acivocaie for the petitioner. Shri NN. Roy, Pane) Lawyer for the State. ORDER GRAB (Passw on this 3’” day of May, 203 1) 1. By thiS petition, the petiiioner seeks a diremion to the respondents ta refund the amount of Rs. 38,3022 whmh has been recovered from the retiral dues of the petitioner, hofding n to be excess payment made to Learned counsel appearing for the peiitioner submiis that the petitroner, whiie working as Assistant Teacher, retrred from service on 31.03.2007, on attaining the age of superannuation. According to the petitioner, tine 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 foiiowing principies of naturai the pentioner during the course of h§s service. justice is no ionger res iniegra. the same has been settied by the Supreme Court in the matter of Sahib Ram v. State of Heavens and oéhers’. and further foiiowed by this Court in the matter of Wdyadhar mixer! v. The State cf L‘hhamsge'h & Gtherez and i/idya Shankar Tiwarzi at. State of MP. {New Stare oi Chheeisganh} and oihere3 and thereafter This Court in Ramonandra Kemp v, State of QG; e Others" and other connected matters, observed as under : foiiowed in severai decisions. go “19. A common thread running into the above decisions of i‘he Supreme Cow? is that, for recovery of excess payment of emofumentsleiiiowances, there are three conditions wherein the excess paymenr may be recovered. nameiy {1:} excess ‘~ tees Supp (1 ) sec is 2 2006 {1 i MPHT 105 (co) 3 2006 (2) MPHT 31 (CG) 4 20m (3) CGLJ 400 sag—R M) paymenf was mac‘s on ascaunf 0f misrepresentatian or #aud on the pm? of the empibyee, {ii} fhe emplcyee had imam/{edge fhaf fhe paymem" received was in excess, and (iii) me error was corrected wifhin a shorf spar; of fime of wrong payment...... " J: Learned counsei appearing for i’ne Stateirespondenfs does no: controvert the submissksns made by learned counsei for the aet§€ioner aad submits that this matier may be d§sposed of in the same ‘terms. in View of foregoing and as admiited by iearned counsel amoearine fer the parties, this pemlon is disposeo of 'm ‘ihe teme of the order passed m the case of Ramehandra Kump4. i.e. the peiitiener is entitled to mié pensionary benefit withoui any deductmn. if he amouat of Rs. 38,392!- has aEready been feces/ewe, the pei§t§oner is eniitied to refund of ‘ihe saié ameun‘i. Howevet %t is oven to the reseondents to take recourse to ihe movisions of the Chhatt'isgafh Civi? Services {Pension} Rules, 1976, §f so advised. in accordance with raw, afterfoiiow’mg basic pr§nc§e§es ef nature} §ust§ce , L. Sd/- al Satish K. Agnihotri f1 Judge 1‘- U1 r Arun l