ybf/WKL“ IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR (CHHATTISGARH) WRIT‘PET1T10N(S)N0.9?1IL7' /2010. SINEzLE EEN$H~ PETITIONER: (/Ganésh Ram Jhap, son of Late‘Sukru Ram, aged abc ut 68 years, residence of Village and IPost Kokiyakhar, Tahsil I Patthalgaon, D:istrict Jashpur, i ) Chhattisgarh. " versus espondent 1. g“ State of Chhaftisgarh, Through Secretary, Department of Education, Dau Kalyan Singh Bhawan, Raipur, X‘Chhattisgarh. 2. The Joint Director, Accounts Treasury and Pension, Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh. 3. District Treasury, Account;Jashpur, / District Jashpur, Chhattisgarh. / WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA Rs v Petitioner ‘Ganesh Ram Jhap VersuS Respondents State Government of Chhattisgarh 85 others HIGH COURT OF CHHA’I'I‘ISGARH : BILASPUR Writ Petition (S) ’No; 214 of 20 10 WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA (SB: Hon’ble Shri Satish K. Agnihotri J.) i Shri Cr Jayant K. Rao, Advocate for the peP'tioner. Shri M. P. S. Bhatia, Deputy Govt. Advocate for the respondents. IOIa—‘ Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the issue asto whether recovery of excess payment for no fault of the employee can be made Without followmg the pnnc1p1es of nahiral Jusuce 1s no longer res mtegra The same has been settled by Hon’ble Supreme Court m various dec1s1ons (See Syed Abdul Qa‘dir and others vs. State of Bihar and othersl). This Court, relying 0n the above decisions has passed several orders, directing refund of the amount, if any, recovered from the employees, where the employees were not given any opportunity to explain about the excess payment, if any, made to them. Learned counsel appearing for the respondents does not dispute the above submission made by learned counsel appealing for the petitioner. However, he submits that the similar order may be passed, subject to veriiication of facts, asto whether the \ 1. 0 R D E R.(Oral) (Passed on this 18th day of Jainuary, 2010) _ I With the consent of the paities, the matter 1s heard finally Challenge in this petition is to the order dated 4 10 2004 (AnnexureP/ 1), whereby a sum of Rs. 30,215] (Rupees Thirty Thousand, TWO Hundred and'Fifteen ) toWards eircess payment made to the petitioner has been directed to be recovered from the retiral dues. OJ 1 (2009) 3 SCC 475 ‘ f ( petitioner has obtained - e excess amoun on misrepfeSentation or misleading the fact. This Court as Well as Hon’ble Supreme Coult in a catena of decisions, time and again reiterates that no recovery of excess payment for no fault of the em loyee can be made without following the .principles of natllral’justice. This Court in Ramchandra Kurup Vs. state of C.G. as othersz aha other connected matters, decided on 23rd November, 2009, observed as under: “19. A common thread runnjnig into the above decisions of the Supreme Court is that, for recovery of excess payment of emoluments] allowances, there are three conditions wherein the excess payment may be lgecovered, namely (i) excess payment was made on account of misrepresentation or fraud on the part of the employee, (ii) éthe employee had knowledge that the payment received was 1n excess, and (iii) the error was corrected within a short span of time of wrong payment.” ." In View of the settled position ofllaw on the point, the petition deserves to be and is allowed. Accordingly, the impugned order dated 45102004 f f (Annexure P/ 1), directing recovery of ‘ 'Rs. 30,215f/—, on account of excess payment made to the petitioner, is hereby quashed. If 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, asto whether the petitioner has obtained the excess amount on misrepresentation or misleading the fact. No order as costs. {ErmaJ'xm/ a § d/- SATISH K. AGNH-IOTRI 2 w.P.(S) No. 3663 of 2009 I W t to