u> 3vr 1 3- y (Do (g ai' 3 s" s ^ 1 o -1 .w ~s a -I O =1: ci tU iS3 <p Qi •o 0 ffia. <B§ "y. /8 '•f' ~^ '\ ^ ^ ^ " "^ ^^ g- s . ^'-.<^ •^%ys "vs^\ \'v <5 a (O' 3- c^8 ^ > t~ iu w 3- o S. 3- Ft o M' C 3_s' ^ ^ 3 ? c; f»fr cn •^l ^m^ m 10 1-h c^ .."T-^ :--^H"E7.3K-S'~; .T. -"•••®e*» j i. HIGH COURT OF CHHATnSGARH : BILASPUR Writ Petition fSI No. 5818 of2008 Petitioner C. R. Kiuyatn Versus Respondents State Govt. ofChhattisgarh & others WRIT PETmON UNDER ARTICLE 226 OFTHE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA (SB: Hon'ble Shri Satish K. Agnihotri J.) Shri Soinkaat Venna, Advocate for the petitioner, Shri. P. K. Bhaduri, Pancl Lawycr for the respondents. ORDBRtOraIl (Passedon fhis 9th day ofNoveniber, 2009) Heard. 1. - ChaUeuge in fhis petition is to the order dated 30.7.2008 (Annexure P/4), whereby a suxa of Rs. 54,299/- (Rupees Fifly Four Thousaad, Two Hundred aad Ninely-niae) towards exeess payiuent niade to the petitioner has been directed to be recovered fiTOin fhe petitioner. 2. Learaed couasel appearing for fhe petitioner subinits fhat fhe petitioner waa not gwen auy opportuiuty to explain about the paymeut niade to fhc petitioner. Thus, this order is vitiated for want of coiapliance of the prmciples of natural justi.ee and fair p]ay ia action. Leamed counsel further submits that there is no faiilt on the part offhe petitioner aad the amouat is paM to hiia in accordauee with fhe pay scales, reviscd and feced by fhe respondeuts froin time to time. The reason assigned for recoveiy is not sustamable, as there was no fault on tbe part ofthe petitioaer. The respondents cannot recover fhe amount, ah-eady paid to the petitioner without foUowiag the principles ofnaturaljustfce. 3. Leamed counsel appeariag for fhe respondents subinits that the excess payment was inade on accouat of the fact fhat fhe first l*l'a*®> Sl 'tf-i lc! kraxnonnati was granted w.e.f. l.1.1986 and the second kramoiiuati was given by inistake w.e.f. 1.1.1998. Subsequently, the second kraoiormati was revised by circular dated 24.4.2006 (Aanexure R/1) after grant of benefits that it should have been graated w.e.f. 1.8.2003. Learned coiinscl admits that there was no fault on the part of the petitioner. The respondent-aufhorities Iiave not fellowed fhe prmciples of natural justice and the impugned action has been taken without affordiug an opportuiiity of hearing to the petitioner. The practi.cc ofpassing order iavolviug civU consequences, without show cause notice or wifhout affordiag an opporttuiity, is condemned. The issue asto whether recoveiy ofexcess payinent for no fault of the employec can be niade without foUowiag tbe principles of natural justice is no loiiger res integrai. The samc has beea settled by Hon'bk Supreme Court ia various decisions. In Syed Abdul Qadlr and others vs. State of Bihar and others1, Hon'ble Three Judges ofthe Supreme Court, having considered atl fhe aspects of the niatter and fhe decisions rendered by fhe Supreme Court ia the past, observed as under: "57. This Court, ia a cateiia of decisions, has granted relief agaiast recoveiy of excess payment ofemoluments/aUowaaces if (a) fhe excess aiuount was not paid on account of any ausrepresentatioa or fiaud on thc part of the employee, and (b) if such excess paymcnt was made by the employer by applyiag a wrong prmciple for calculating the pay/atlowaace or on the basis of a pardcular iaterpretation of rute/order, which 1s subsequently found to be erroueous. 58. The relief against recoveiy is granted by courts aot because ofany right in fhe employees, but in equity, exercising judicial discretion to reMeve the employees fiom fhe hardship that will be caused if recoveiy is ordered. But, if ia a given case, it is proved that the employee had kucwledge that the ' (2009) 3 SCC 475 -.iuu. 3 paynient received was in excess of what was due or wron^y paid, or in cases whcre fhe error is detected orcorrccted within a short time ofwrong payment, the uiatter being in fhe reahn of judicial dtecretion, courts may, on the facts and circumstances of any particiilar case, order for recoveiy of fhe aiuount paid in excess. See Sahib Ram v. State of Hai3rana, Shyam Babu Venna v. Uiuon of India, Unlon of India v. M. Bhaskar, V. Gangaram-v. Director, Col. B.J.Atekara (Rctd.) v. Govt oflndia, F'urshottein Lal Das v. State ofBihar, Punjab Natioaal Baak v. Maajeet Su^h aad Bihar SEB v. Bijay Bhadur." 6. Thalau In view of fhe foigoiag, fhc petition is SUowed. The impugned OBder dated 30.7.2008 (Annexure P/4), directing recoveiy of Rs. 54,299/-, on acooiint of excess payment inade to fhe petitk>ner, is hereby qiiashed. If fhe amount Jias altcady been recovered, the petitioner is entitled to fhe said amount with interest at the rate of 6% per aiuium. No oider asto coste. Sd/- Satish K. Aghihotri Judge