/ cg ta IN THE HON’BLE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR C.G. W.P.(S) No .........42‘22?) ........2011 PETITIONER Sunder La! Sahu, aged 62 years, S/o Jagguial, Retd. Head Master, Middle School, Girgaon, Block Dongargaon, Distt. Rajnandgaon R/o C/o Vijay Medmal Store, ex. Rajnandgaon (C.G.) Versus RESPONDENTS / (1) The State Govt. of Chhattisgarh Through — The Secretary, School Education Deptt Ministry D.K.S. Bhawan, Raipur (C'.G.) / (2) The Distt. Education Officer, T Rajnandgaon (C.G.) / (3) The Block. Education Officer, Dongargaon, Dist. Rajnandgaon (C.G.) Writ Qetition under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India for issuance of mandamus of writ/direction or any other apgrogriate writ. W W“—W_—v.% HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WRIT PETITION (S) No. 883 of 2011 Sunder Lal Sahu. PETITIONER VERSUS The State Govt. of Chhattisgarh & Others. WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226/227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA ' SB: Hon’ble Shri Satish K. Agnihotri, J. Present: Shri Somkant Venna, Advocate for the petitioner. Shri N.N.Roy, Panel Lawyer for the State/respondents. RESPONDENTS ORDER ORAL (Passed on 20 day of April, 201 1) e By this petition, the petitioner seeks a direction to the respondents to refund the amount of Rs. 35,974/- with interest at the rate of 6% from the date of deduction, till the date of refund of the amount to the petitioner and to grant consequential relief of payment of retiral dues pension etc. without deduction. 2. Shri Verma, leamed counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner, while working as Head Master, retired on attaining the age of superannuation on 30.09.2010. Shri Verma further submits that the petitioner was directed to deposit an amount of Rs. 35974/— for the alleged excess payment made to the petitioner with regard to second kramonnati which was deposited by the petitiOner on 27.09.2010 (Annexure P/l). According to Shri Verma, 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 principles of natural justice is no longer res integra, the same has been settled by the Supreme Court in the matter of Sahib Ram v. State ofHaryana and others], and further followed by this Court in the matter of Vidyadhar Tiwarz‘ v. The State of Chhattisgarh & 0thers2 and Vidya Shankar Tz'wari v. State ofMP. 1 1995 Supp (1) scc 18 2 2006 (l) MPHT 105 (CG) ZV/ 2 (Now State ofChhatz‘isgarh) and others3 and thereafter followed in several decisions. This Court in Ramchandra Kurup v. State 0f C.G. & 0thers4 and other connected matters, observed as under: “19. A common thread running 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 recovered, namely (i) excess paymentwas made on account of misrepresentation or fraud on the part of the employee, (ii) the employee had knowledge that the payment received was in excess, and (iii) the error was corrected within a short span oftime of wrong payment...... " Learned counsel appearing for the State/respondents does not coritrovert the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioner and submits that this matter may be disposed of in the same terms. In view of the foregoing and as admitted by learned counsel appearing for the parties, this petition is disposed of in the terms of the order passed in the case of Ramchandra Kurup". i.e. the petitioner is entitled to full pensionary benefit without any deduction. If the amount of Rs. 35,974/~ has already been recovered, the petitioner is entitled to refund of the said amount. However, it is open to the respondents to take recourse to Rule 65 of the Chhattisgarh Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1976, if so advised, in accordance with law, after following basic principles of natural justice. Satish K. Agnihotri ‘ Judge \A’ Sd/-‘ Amit 3 2006 (2) MPHT 31 (CG) 4 2010 (3) CGLJ 400