$ing§e $emk‘ IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT — BILASPUR WRIT PETITI N s No. T‘ .L, 0 OF 2009 3. THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, RURAL ENGINEERING SERVICE DIVISION, MAHASAMUND, DISTRICT - MAHASAMUND (c. G.) 4. THE JOINT DIRECTOR, TREASURY, ACCOUNT AND PENSION, RAIPUR DIVISION, RAIPUR (C. G.) WI Writ Petition under Article — 226'of the Constitution of India. 1. Particulars of the petitio'ner As above in cause title. Particulars of the resgonglents As above in cause title. \ WWWV V V: ’ K PETITIONER BRIJMOHAN NETAM, AGED — 62 YEARS S/O SHRI PANCH RAM NETAM RETIRED — ASSISTANT GRADE —- II, FROM O/O THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, MAHASAMUND DISTRICT MAHASAMUND TEHSIL & DISTRICT MAHASAMUND (C G.)' VERSUS RESPONDENT : 1. STATE OF CHHATTISGARH, THROUGH — THE SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF PANCHAYAT & RURAL DEVELOPMENT MANTRALAY, D. K. S. BHAWAN, RAIPUR 2. THE SUPERINTENDING ENGINEER, RURAL ENGINEERING SERVICE, RAIPUR CIRCLE, RAIPUR (C. G.) @9 .- (Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India) Sinle Bench : Hon'ble Shri Satish K. Agnihotri, J. - Present :« Shri R.K. Kesharwani, Advocate for the petitioner. t? NN. Rey, Panel Lawyer for the State. ORDER (ORAL) (Passed on this 21" day of February, 201 1) 1. The petitioner, while working as Assistant Grade—ii, retired from service > on 30/1 1/2007 on attaining the'age of superannuation; The petitioner is aggrieved by the order dated 23/1 0/2009 (Annexure PI3), whereunder a sum of Rs. 1,02,597I- has been directed to be deducted from the retrial dues, holding it to be excess payment made to the petitioner during th course of his service. ‘2. According to the learned counsel appearing for 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 following principies of natural justice is no longer res integra, the same has beensettled by the Supreme Court in the matter of Sahib Ram v. state of Heryane and ofhers’, and further followed by this Court in the matter of Vfdyadhar Tiwari v. The State of Chhattisgerh & Othersa and Vidye Shanker Trwen' v. State of MP. (Now State of Chhattisgarh) and others3 and thereafter foilowed in severaidecisions. 3. This Court in Ramchandra Kurup v. state offaG, & Others‘ and other connected matters, observed as under : ‘ "19A common thread running into the above decisions of the Supreme Court is that, for recovery of excess payment of emotuments/aliowances. there are three ’ conditions wherein the excess payment may be recovered, namely (i) excess payment was made on account of misrepresentation or fraud /‘ 1 i995 Supp (1) scc 1s 1 2006 {1) MPHT 105 (CG) 3 2006 (2) MPHT 31 (CG) . 4 2010 (3) CGLJ 400 e " .:‘;i§‘r%‘i' ()F CHHATTISGARH : BILASPUR WRIT PETITEON (S) NO.7408 OF 2009 PETI‘TIONER Brijmohan Netam Versus RESPONDENTS sate of Chhattisgarh & Others on the part of the employee, (ii) the employee he“ WNN'edge the? the aeymeat recerved was in exceee, am} (iii) ihe war was corrected within a short span of time of wrong payzrrent...... " However, teamed counsel submits that the petitioner was aware of th ~ wrong pay fixation, as he had availed benefit of that. Except the self-same statement, no other documents have been produced by the respondent authorities to estabiish the fact that the petitioner had knowledge about wrong fixation of the pay soaie, thus, the contention is rejected. In View of the foregoing and as admitted by teamed counsel appearing for the parties, this petition is disposed of in the terms of the order passed in the case of Remchendra Kurup‘. rte. the impugned order dated 23/10/2009 (Annexure P13) regarding recovery of amount of Rs.1 ,02,597/- from the retrial dues of the petitioner on account of excess payment, is hereby quashed. The petitioner is entitled to full pensionary beneflts/gratuity amount without any deduction. if the amount has been recovered, the petitioner is entitled to the said amount with interest at the rate of 6% per annum. ln view of the forgoing, the impugned order dated 23/10/2009 (Annexure P/3) directing recovery of Rs. 1,02,597l- on account of excess payment made to the husband of the petitioner, is hereby quashed. lf the amount has already been recovered, the petitioner is entitled to the said amount with interest at the rate of 6% per annum, subject to verification of facts. The writ petition is accordingly disposed of. No order asto costs. , Learned counset‘ appearing for the State/respondents does not controvert the submissions made by teamed counsel for the petitioner. Sdl- . . Satish K. Agmhotn Judge~ Arun e /