^^\<5-^/ IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WRIT PETITION (S) N0. "l (V) /2010 PETITIONER \^€^ ",.. ^..^y^^ ^v\^' _....••"' ^l^^' .A^'" ^ RESPONDENTS 1. y Alok Kumar Rai^ S/o. Late Shri Yogendra Rai, Aged about 55 years, Occupation-Laboratory Technician (Teacher) Presently Posted at Vivekanand Government Post Graduate College, Manendra- garh, District Koriya (C.G.), R/o. Near Saraswati Shishu Mandir, Manendragarh, District Koriya (C.G.). VERSUS State of Chhattisgarh, Through the Secretary^ Higher Education Department, D.K.S. Bhawan, Mantralaya, Raipur (C.G.). ,/' 2. / The Commissioner, Directorate Higher Education, Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.) ^' 3. The Joint Director, Treasury Accounts 85 Pension, Ambikapur, District Surguja (C.G.). 4. ' The Principal, Vivekanand P.G. College, Manendragarh, District Koriya (C.G.). WRITPBTITION UNDER ARTICLB 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH : BILASPUR WRIT PETITION (S) N0. 7180 OF 2010 PETITIONER Alok Kumar Rai RESPONDENT Versus State of Chhattisgarh & Others (Writ Petition underArt:icle 226 ofthe Constitution of India) Single Bench : Hon'bte Shri Satish K. Agnihotri, J. Present:- Shri R.K. Sharma, Advocate for the petitioner. Shri Ajit Singh, Panel Lawyer for the State. ORDER(ORAL) (Passed on this 28th day of February, 2011) -^ 1. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. The petitioner, who is working as Laboratory Technician (Teacher), is aggrieved by the order dated 3-12-2010 Annexure -- P/1, whereunder a sum of ? 1,96,966/- hasbeen directed to be deducted from the salary of the petitioner, holding it to be excess payment made to the petitioner. 3. According to the learned counsel appearing for 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 settled by the Supreme Court in the matter of Sahib Ram v. State of Haryana and others, and further followed by this Court in the matter of Vidyadhar Tiwari v. The State of Chhattisgarh & Others2 and Vidya Shankar Tiwari v. State of M.P. (Now State of Chhattisgarh) and others and thereafter followed in several decisions. 1 1995Supp(1)SCC18 2 2006 (1)MPMT105 (CG) 3 2006 (2) MPHT 31 (CG) Thte Court in Ramchandra Kurup v. State of C.G. & Others4 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 payment was 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 of time of wrong payment......" Despite granting time, no return has been filed by the State. 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. 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 impugned order dated 3-12-2010 (Annexure - P/1) regarding recovery of amount of ? 1,96,966/- from the salary of the petitioner on account of excess payment, is hereby quashed. If the amount has been recovered, the petitioner is entitled to the said amount. However, liberty is reserved to the respondent authorities to take appropriate steps, in accordance with law, ifso advised. Gowri Sd/- Satish K. Agnihotri Judge 42010(3)CGU400