M.-.“ w IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR . W. P. (Si No. Q ?°)(a OF 2011. . PETITIONER :/ Kacharu Ram Uike, S/o. late Shri Pati Ram Uike, aged about. 70 years, Retired 'Head Master, R/o. Village Gol- Kumhrda, Post Charama, Block Charama, District Kanker ' (C.G.). VERSUS RESPONDENTS / :1. State of Chhattisgarh, Through : The Secretary, Tribal Welfare Department, D.K.S. Bhawan, Raipur (C. G.) Divisional, Joint Director, Treasury, Accounts and Pension, Division Jagdalpur, District Bastar (C. Gr.) Block Education Officer, [Charama, Block Charama, District Kanker (C.G.) WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE .226 OF T CONSTITUTIONOOF INDIA HE \C\ HIGH COURT OFVCHHATTISGARH : BILASPUR WRIT PETlTlON (S) NO. 396 OF 2011 PETITIONER Kacharu Ram Uike Versus State of Chhattisgarh & Others (Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India) Single Bench : Hon’bie Shri Satish K. Agnihotri, J. Present :- Shri Somkant Verma Advocate for the petitioner Shri Y S Thakur Dy Advocate Genera! for the State/ respondents RESPONDENTS ORDER (ORAL) (Passed on this 24*“ day of January, 201 1) 5 1. Challenge in this petition is to the order dated 22.03.2005 (Annexure PI1), whereby a sum of Rs.24,186/- has been deducted from the retiral dues of the petitioner, holding it to be excess payment made to the petitioner, during the course of his service. 2. Shri Verma: learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner retired from service on attaining the age of superannuation on 30.04.2003. During the course of settlement of retiral dues, a sum of Rs. 24,186l- was deducted holding it to be excess payment made to the petitioner during the course of‘his SerVlCe. 3. Shri Verma, further submits that the issue asto whether recovery of excess payment for no fault of the employee can be made without following the principles of natural justice is no longer res integra. The same has been settled by Hon'ble Supreme Court in various decisions (See Syed Abdul Qadir and others v. State of Bihar an‘d others'). This Court, relying on the above decisions has passed several orders, directing refund of the amount, if any, 1 (2009) 3 SCC 475 C? 2 recovered from the employees, where the employees were not given any opportunity to explain about the excess payment, if any, made to them. Shri Verma, further contends that any recovery from retiral dues can be made only in case if there was any misrepresentation or fraud on the part of the employee and the employee had knowledge that the payment Was received in excess. The error, if any, could have been corrected within a short span of time from wrong payment. Learned counsel appearing for the respondents does not dispute the above submission made by learned counsel appearing for the petitioner. However, he submits that the similar order may be passed, subject to verification of facts. 5. This Court, as well as Hon’ble Supreme Court, in a catena of decisions, time and again reiterated that no recovery of excess payment for no fault of the employee can be made without following the principles of natural justice. This Court in Ramchandra Kurup v. State of, C.G. & odrers’ and other V connected matters, decided on 23" November. 2009, observed as ‘ unden “19. A common thread running into the above r decisions of the Supreme Court is that, for ' recovery of excess payment of emoluments/ allowances, there are three conditionsWherein the excess payment may be recovered, namely (i) excess payment was made on account of misrepresentation or fraud on the pert of the employee, m) thelemplcyee had knowledge'that ' :_ the payment received was in excess, and mi) a ' the error was corrected within a short span of time ofwrong payment.......;..” . ,, fwggs) No. 3663 of2o09 ;\ In view of foregoing, the impugned order dated 22.03.2005 . (Annexure P/1) directing recovery Rs.24,186l- on account 0f 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. However, liberty is reserved to the State/respondents that if the excess payment has been made on account of misrepresentation or fraud on the part of the employee, or the employee had the knowledge that the payment received by him was in excess, fresh orders may be issued on verification of the facts, after affording . opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismed of. No order asto costs. a Sd/—' Satish K. Agnihotri Judge l ashok