A v 1 ' IN THE HON’BLE HIGH WRIT PETITION PETITIONER RESPONDENTS : 1. / COURT OF CHHATI'ISGARH AT (S) No. $210?“ OF 2010 / swim BENCH Smt. Jagat Kunwar Widow of Late Shri Mohat‘1 Singh, aged about 6O years, §esident of Village Maheshpuf, Tahsil Katghora, District Korba (C.G.). VERSUS State of Chhattisgarh, through: The Secretary, Tribal Development Department, D.K.S. Bhawan, Raipur (C.G.). The Assistant Commissioner, Tribal Development, Korba, District Korba (C.G.). The Joint Director, Treasury, Accounts and Pension Bilaspur Division, Bilaspur (C.G.). The Principal, Government Boys Higher Secondary School Katghora, District Korba (C.G.). WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA i BILASPUR (C.G.i HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISG ) - AT BILASPIjR VERSUS WRIT PETITION (S) No. 207 of20‘10 {PETmONER ‘ -: Smt. Jagat Kunwat. fREspoNDENTs :smte ofchmuisgarh chem. Wnt Petition Under Artmle 226 OfThe Constrttmon Ofhdla SB' Hon’ble Shrl Satish K. lAgnihotri, J. r 3m V KPandey Advécae for the etttwner Shn Y S Thakur Deputy Advocate General farthe State/respondents ‘ / Present: -..a- 4 ORAL ORDER _ (Passed on 15m day of January, 20 10) W1th the consent ofthe parnes, the matter 1s heard finally Challenge 1n thls petmon ls to the order dated 04 12 2009 (Annexure a L P/l) and 3O 12 2009 (Annexure P/2), whereby a sum of Rs 45 468/- has been duected to be recovered m the retaral dues holdmg It to be. ‘ execss payment made to the husband ofthe petrttoner, dunng the worse V ' ofhis service r L V V Shn Pandey, learned counsel appear-mg for the petmoner submrts tlm, e. 1he husband ofthe petmoner namely Mohan 8mg]: working on me post » ‘ ~ ofpeon, retiredm sgrvme 30.04.2008. Thereafter, Mohan Smgh tiled on 16.08.2009. mung the course of settlement of the retiral &1e: md iixatiop of pension, vide the impugned ordem, a sum of Rs. 45,408.13 has been directed to be recovered heiding it to be excess payment mde to the husbend ofthe petitioner during the ’course ofhis service. learned counsel appeanng for the petitioner swmrts that the Issue asto. , whether reeovety of exoess payment for no fault ofthe employee can be made w1thout followmg the principles of natural justice is no‘longer res y ‘integra. The same has been settled by Hon’ble §wreme Com-t m (4 ¢$‘ several orders directmg remnd of *2 i % amount, ifrany, wovered hm. various decisions (See Syed Abdul QW and otha's v. Stmfmhar ‘i 'and others’) This Court, relying the above decisions has passed: the employees, where the employees were not gven any opportumty to ‘ ' explam about the excess payment, any, made to them. Shn, Pandey tinthersubmlts thatanyrecovery retiral dues can‘bema&only in: case1fthere wasanymlsrepresemaponorMdmthepaxtofthe” employee and the employee had knoiwledge that the paymert recetved was m excess, and the exror was conected wlthn ashort W oftime of wrong Payment Learned counsel appeanng for the rewondems dues not dxspute the above submisslon made by leamed eonmel appeanng for the petmoner ‘ HOWever, he subrmts that the slnnlar order may be passed, subject to ‘ venficatronoffacts. This Court as well as Hon’ble Supreme Com in a mtena of=dedsiohs; time and agam reiterates 11131 no recovery of excess payment fbr no fault ‘ 7 ofthe employee can be made Without followmg the prmcrpbs ofnatural I Jusnce Thxs CourtmRamdmn¢aKuw Vs StateafCG & OW and other oomected matters, demded on 23” November, 2009 observed: : * \asm “19 A common thread mnmng mto the above . decrstons ofthe SupremeCourtmMforrccowry of 3r excess payment of emohnnents/allowances, there are v? three conditions wherem the excess payment may be I _ ‘~ recovered, namely (1) excess payment was made on 3 account ofmasrepresentatton or hand on the part ofthe employee, (u) the employee had knowledge m the . payment renewed was m excess, and (1n) the en-or was i ‘ ‘V 2‘ corrected wrthm a short span of tune of wrong ‘ . payment Y ‘ (2009) 3 scc 475 z wp (S)No 3563 of2009 $0 7. _. In view om: segled positiommw omhe point, 11m petition desegies , ‘ [to be and, is allowed. Accgyrdiniy, the impumg‘ed orders dawd 04.12.2909 (Annexure P/l) and .30. 2.2009 (Annexure P/2), directing V reqovery of Rs 45,468/-, on account of, excesspayment made t9 the ~ husband o§the petitioner, is hereby quashaa. 1mg amoun 11g away v » been recoyered, the petitioner is entitled to thepaic't amoum: wnhmtnrcst _ ‘ o attherateof6%perannnm,subjecttove1i0cationof&cts The G y respondent authonttes may thereafter settle the pensnenary benefts m. I accordance With law No order asto cask WM’ w“ Sd/- ’ k x \ SATISH K. AGNIHOTRI ‘ ’ Judge