^^ (er^^ IN THE H(M^?BLE fflGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPURfC.G.) WRIT PETmON fSV No. t{^^2> OF 2010 TmONER. ^s^ ^'-;^>\^\^"oL<P-" ^^^s^ ioi-<p" ^'^.^..•••••" Bahura Bai Baghel, aged about 65 Years, W/o Late Shri Uderam Baghel, R/o Gram- Kohka, Post - Tumdibod, Tah- Dongergaon, Distt.- Rajnandgaon (C.G.) VERSUS RESPON0ENTS.................. 1. State of Chhattisgarh, through its Secretary, Department of School ^ Education, Mantralaya, D.K.S. Bhavan, Raipur (C.G.) 2. Divisional Joint Director, Kosh, Lekha and pension, Raipur (C.G.) 3. District Treasury Officer, Rajnandgaon (C^p.-) st^''Y ^^&. .%,^. ^ E^hlfcj ^:n ^. 7s WRIT PETTIONUNDERARTICALE 226 Of THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA ^ .'€' ^ M1GH COURT OF CHHATTIS6ARH AT BILASPUR WRIT PETITION (S) N0.4943 OF 2010 Petitioner Bahura Bai Baghe! Versus Respondents State of Chhattisgarh & Others WRIT PETiTION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF iND!A (SB : Hon'ble IVIr. Satish K. AgnJhotri, J.) Present:- Shri Rakesh Thakur, Advocate forthe petitioner. Shri N.N.Roy, Pane! Lawyerforthe State. ORDERfORAU (Passed on 24th day of March, 2011) Challenge in this petition is to the order dated 16.04.2007 (Annexure P/1) whereby, a sum of Rs. 22,026/- has been directed to be recovered from the retriai dues of the petitioner, hoiding it to be excess payment made to the petitioner during the course of her service. Learned counsei appearing for the petjtioner submits that the petitioner, while working as Head-master in the School Education Department, retired frpm service on 31.03.2007, on attaining the age of superannuation. According to the petitioner, 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 settied by the Supreme Court in the matter of Sahsb Ram v. State ofHaryana andothers , and further foliowed by this Court in the matter of Vsdyadhar Tiwari v. The Stats of Chhattisgarh & 0 e^s2 and V/cfya Shankar Tiwan v. State of M.P. (Now State of Chhattisgarh) and others3 and thereafter followed in several decisions. This Court in Ramchandra Kurupy. State of C.G. & Others4 and other connected matters, observed as under: ^ 11995Supp(1)SCC18 22006(1)MPHT105(CG) 3 2006 (2) MPHT 31 (CG) 42010(3)CGLJ400' "19. A Gommon thread running into the above decisions of the Supreme Court is that, for recovery of excess payment of emoiuments/alfowances, there are three conditions wherein the excess payment may be recovered, nas'nely (i) excess payment was made on account of misrepresentation or fraud on the part of the empfoyee, (ii) the employee had knowledge that the payment received was in excess, and (iii) the error was corrected within a short span of time of wrong payment......" 4. Learned counsel appearing for the State/respondents does not controvert the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioner and submits that this matter may be disposed of in the same terms. 5. 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 Kurup4. /.e. the Smpugned order dated 16.04.2007 (Annexure P/1) regarding recovery of an amount of Rs. 22,0267- from the retrial dues of the petitioner on account of excess payment, is hereby quashed. The petitioner is entitled to full pensionary benefits/gratuity amount without any deduction. If the amount has been recovered, the petitioner is entitled to the said amount. 6. 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 baste principles of natural justice. ___ Sd/- Satish K. Agnihotri Judge ashok