^^- ^ P \ sr^ 7 /^ IN THE mOH COURT OP CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR W.P.fSINo. ^'^ /09 ^ a? PETITIONER Lal Ram S/o P«-«^vs)^fl^ Aged about 65 years, Rtd Assitant Teacher R/o Ratamati P.0 Painko Distt. Jashpur C.G] VERSUS RESPONDENTS /' 1_ StateofChhattisgarh Through the Secretary, Department ..t'"^^ of Tribal Welfare, D.K.S. Bhawan \-^^^>" ^••'"K^y ..•••^K^y'" Raipur [C.G.] ..•'""..^'^ ^^^ ",...•••'" '^••'-"""" y 2- The Assitant Comxnissioner, Department ofTribal Development Jashpur Distt . Jashpur C.G] ^^^^^m^ 3. The Block Education Officer, Jashpur Distt. Jashpur [ C<G<] «pc 4. The Divisional Joint Director Trasuxy Accounts and Pension, Bilaspur [ C.G.] WRIT PETITION A/U 226/227 OF THE CONSTITUTTON OF INDIA n HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH : BILASPUR WRIT PETITION (S) N0. 2616 OF 2009 PETiTIONER RESPONDENTS Shyam Lal Ram Versus State of Chhattisgarh & Others (Writ Petition under Articte 226/227 of the Constitution of India) Singie Bench : Hon'ble Shri Satish K. Agnihotri, J. Present:- Shri Neelkanth Malaviya, Advocate for the petitioner. Shri Sushil Dubey, Government Advocate for the State/ respondents. ORDER rORAU (Passed on this 24th day of January, 2011) Challenge in this petition is to the order dated 20.3.2007 (Annexure P-1), whereby a recovery to the tune of Rs. 3,00,349/- has been directed against the petitioner. The brief facts in a nutshell are that the petitioner was working on the post of Assistant Teacher and retired on attaining the age of superannuation on 31.5.2005. Thereafter,* according to the petitioner, the impugned recovery order was passed without affording an opportunity of hearing to put forward his case. On the other hand; Shri Dubey, iearned Govt. Advocate appearing for the respondents submits that the order of recovery is in accordance with law, as laid down by this Court m Ramchandra Kuivp v. State of Chhattssgarh & Othsrs1 holding that recovery may be made, if the employee had knowledge that the payment received was in excess. 1 2010(3) C.G.L.J. 400 ,,^^j, ",r "' g 1 4. In the case on hand; the petitioner alongwith others had given an undertaking stating that the amount, if it is, in excess, the same may be recovered from him, as perAnnexure R-2. 5. Having heard learned counsel appearing for the parties, perused the pleadings and documents appended thereto, it is true that the paymentof Rs. 3,00,349/-, which was paid to him was in the knowledge of the petitioner, as he had given an undertaking on that basis to refund the same. Thus, the State is competent to recover the amount because the petitioner had knowledge about it. 6. In Ramchandra Kurup(supra), itwas observed as under: 19. A common thread running into the above dedsions of the Supreme Couft is thst, for recovery of excess payment of emoluments/aliowances, there are three conditions wherein the excess payment may be recovered, namely (i) excess payment wasmade on account of misrepresentation orfraud qn the part of the emp/oyee, (ii) the employee had knowledge that the payment received was in excess, and (iii) the errorwas corrected within a short span of time of wrong payment. In the case on hand, the afore-stated three conditions are not available to the employer to pass the impugned orders dated 8.6.2009 (AnnexureP/16 in W.P.(S) No.3302/2009). 7. However, having regard to the facts of the case, it has been decided that even if,there was an excess payment by the employer wjthoirt affording the opportunity of hearing to the employee to exDlain or to put fprward his case to the effect whether it was an excess amount or not, no recovery can be made. The decision to hold the amount excess was ex parte. Thus, it amounts to violatlon of principles of natural justice, which has to be complied with in a case, where adverse order is passed against any person including the employee. Thus, in this case, even if the petitioner had knowledge and had given an undertaking to the effect; the '^^sy '"^^^'" petitioner was entitled to notice to explain or to put forward his case in respect of the fact asto whether the amount was in excess or not. 8. For the reasons stated hereinabove, the impugned order dated 28.3.2007 is quashed. However, liberty is reserved to the respondent authorities to take appropriate steps, if so advised, in accordance with law i.e. Rule 65 of the Chhattisgarh Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1976. If the amount has already been recovered, the pet'rtioner is entitled to the said amount with interest at the rate of 6% per annum. 9. In view of the above, the petition is allowed to the above extent.No order asto costs. Sd/- Satish K. Agnihotri Judge Ashok