SI-MGI.E GE?IGH '^^: e^s^ l^~- m THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT QF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR ^5$L W.P. (8) No........'??.'?.?.'......./09) PETITIONER RESPONDENDS VERSUS : 1. ' Lohra Ram S/o. Late Shri Jahuran Ram, aged about - 67 year, R/o. Village/P. O. Ghatamunda , Tahsil - Kunkuri, District - Jashpur (C.G.) State of Chhattisgarh, Through : Secretary Tribal welfare Department, D.K.S. Bhavan, Raipur (C.G.) The Block Education Officer, Tribal welfare Department Kunkuri , Tah - Kunkuri District Jashpur (C.G.) The Assistant Director, Treasury Accounts& Pension Division Office, Bilaspur (C.G.) The Treasury Officer, Treasury Office Jashpur District Jashpur (C.G.) WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF CONSTITUTION OF INDIA 3. ^" 4. -I -1- .wu-l- 'l ^^ HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR ^TiTtF^M^, S 1 I i.\J.I.''i£^ WRIT PETITiON (S) No. 5851 of 2009 Lohra Ram. RESPONDENTS State ofChhattisgaFh & Others. WRlT PET1T10N UNDER ART1CLE22S OFTHE CQNSTITUTION OF INDiA >B: Hon'ble Present: . Shri Vineet K. Pandey, Advocate for the petltioner. Shri A.V.Shridhar, Panel Lavvyer for the State/respondents. ^. Shri (Passsd on 08 dsy of January, 2010) Vtfith the consent of learned counsel appearing for the parties, * the petition is heard finally. The p.etitioner, working as Head Master, retired from ser'/ice on attaining the age of superannuation on 30.06.2005 from the office of Slock Education Officer, Kunkuri, District Jashpur. Chalienge in this petition is to the order dated 12.09.2005 (Annexure P/1), whereby a sum of Rs. 13,780/- has been ordered to be deducted from the retira! dues hoiding it to be excess payment made to the petltioner during the course of his ser/ice. Leamed counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the petltioner was not given any opportunity to expiain about the payment made to him. Thus, the impugned order is vitiated •for vi/ant of compiiance of the principies of naturai Justice and fa'r play in action. Learned counsel further submits that there is no fault on the part ofthe petitioner and the amount was paid to him in accordance with the pay scales, revisea and fixed by the respondents from time •to time. The respondents cannot recover the amount.already paid to the petitioner wlthoui foilowing the principles of naturai justice. «ss- A Learned counsei appearing for the respondents subrnits that if the excess payment was made to the petitioner, the same can be recovered at the tlme of settlemenf of retiral dues. The issue asto whether recovery of excess payrnent for no fault of the employee can be made without foUowlng the principies of natura! justice is no longer res integra. The same has been settle( by Hon'bie Supreme Court in various decisions. In Syed Abdui Qadir and others vs. State of Bihar and others', Hon'bie Three Judges of the Supreme Court, having considered all the aspects of the matter and the decisions rendered by the Suprerne Court in the past, obsewed as under: "57. This Court, in a catena of decisions, has granted relief against recovery of excess payment of smoluments/aiiowances if (a) the excess amount was not paid on account of any misrepresentation or fraud on the part of the empioyee, and (b) if such excess payment was made by the employer by applying a wrong principle for caiculating the pay/ai!owance or on the basis of a oarticular interpretation of ruie/order, vvhjc.h is subsequentiy found to be erroneo.us. 58. The relief against recovery is granted by courts not because of any rig.ht in the employees, but in equity, exercising judiciai discretion to reiieve the employees from the hardship that wiil be caused if recovery is ordered. But,lf in a given cass, it is proved that the employee had knowiedge that the payment received was in excess of •vvhat was due or wrongiy paid, or in cases where the error is detected or corrected within a short time of 'A'rong payment, the matter being in the realm of judiciai discretion, courts may, on t.he facts and cireumstances of any particuiar csse, order for recovery of the amount paid in excess. See Sahib Ram v. State of Haryana, Shyam Bsbu Verma v. Union of india, Union of India v. M. Bhaskar, V. Gangaram v. Director, Coi. B.J.Akkara (Retd.) v. Gov1:. of India, Purshottam Lai Das v. State of Bihar, Punjab National Bank v. Manjeet Singh and Bihar SEB v. iijay Bhadur." %I o ••'..-il This Court as well as Hon'bie Supreme Court in a catena of decisions, time and again reiterates that no recovery of excess payment for no fault ofthe ernployee can be made without fo!!owin£ the principies of natural justice. This Court in Ramchandra Kurup Vs. State of C.G. & others" and other connected matters, decided on 23 Novsmbsr, 2009, observed as under: "19. A comrnon thread running into the above decisions of the Supreme Court is that, for recove.ry of excess payment of emoiuments/ailowances. there are three conditions wherein the excess payment may be recovered, namely (i) excess payment was made on account of misrepresentation or fraud on the ps.rt of the ernpioyee, (ii) the empioyee had knowiedge that the payment received v/as ih excess, and (iii) the error was correctsd within a short span oftime ofVt'rong payrnent." In view of the forgolng, the petition is allowed. The impugned order dated 12.09.2005 (Annexure P/1), directing recovery' of Rs. '!3,780/- on account of excess payment made to the petitioner, is hereby quashed. !f the amount has aiready been recovered, the petjtioner is entitled to the said amount with interest at the rate of 6% per annum, subject to verification of facts. No order asto costs. Sd/- Satish K. Agnihotri Judge i ^^ ^