Ved Prakash Sharma Versus State Government ^. cstflci.nfflrh ^ rsthi"ar 'IK^I iiiaGiii.i'iiKutO.i ii i<& •.-.'a.i iit/iiS. >a 3. iTSON UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDiA •i, J.) Shri Somkant 'v' Shri V.V. S. Roy, PanelLav i, Advocate for the petiiioner. >y, Deputy Advocate General with Shri N.N. ts. (Passed on 5"' day of May, Chaltenfle in ihis petition is to the order dated 16.08.2007 & 24.10.2007 (Annexure P/4 & P/5) whereby it has been directed to recover the excess payment made to the petitioner, on acoount ofwrong fixatjon of his salary. Learned oounsel appearing for the peiitioner submits that the petitioner is working on the pcst of Maie Heaith Worker. The petitioner received a communication dated 16.08.2007 & 24.10.2007 (Annexure P/4 & P/5) issued by the respondent authortties whereby it has been directed to recover ihe excess payment made to the petitioner, on account of wrong fixation of salary. Shri Venna submits that the ounitive order of recoverv has been passed wlthout affording an opportunlty of hearing to the petliioner. He further contends that the issue asio whether recovery of excess payment for no fault of the empioyee can be made vvithout foiiowlng the principles of natural jusiice Is no longer res integra. The same has been setiled by Hon'bie Supreme Couri in various decisions (See Syed Atxltal Qa<Sr and others vs. State of Blharand others). This Court, reiying on the above decisions has passed several orders, directlng refund of the amount, if any, recovered from the employees, where the smployees were not given any opportunity to expiain about the excess payment, if any, made to them. Shri Verma, on instructions, further submsts that the petitioner does not want to press other grounds i.e. withdravifa! of increment or further action on the basis of impugned order dated 15.08.2007 & 24.10.2007 (Annexure P/4 & P/5). The petitioner confines his prayer to the extent that recovery of i^nnQ 2^SC£-^-L^. g?°— . s ? /'^m^\ 1 .^' ^- 7. <5^ excess payment made to the petitioner on account of wrong fixalion of salary, mav not be made. Learned oounsei appearing for the State/respondents does not dispute the above submission made by learned counset appearing for the petitioner. Learned counsei further submits Ihat since no opportunity of hearing was afforded before passing the impugned order, iiberty may be granted to the respondent/State to take steps for recovery of any excess amount after followiing the due process of law and affer affording an opportunity of hearina to 11 Is a trite law that no order preiudicing the interest of an empioyee can be passed without affording an opportunity of hearing. It is not t'ne case of respondents that oppodunity of hearing was afforded to the petitioner, and ihe present case is such wherein notice of hearing is to be dispensed with. This Court as we!I as Hon'bie Supreme Court in a catena of decisions, time and again reiterat^ that no recovery of excess payment for no fault of the employee can be made vrfithout foiiomng the prinoipies of naturat justice. This Court in Ranrechandra Kurup Vs. State of C.G. & others' and oiher connected matters, decided on 23 November, 2009, observed as under: "19. A common thread running into the above decfeions ofthe Supreme Court is that, for rscovery of excess paymenl of emQtuments/aiiafances, there are three condftions wherein the excess paymeni 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 knowiedge that the payment recelved was in excess, an^ (ii'i) the error was corrected withi'n a short span of time of wrong payment. ........" Accordingly, the impugned order 16.08.2007 & 24.10.2007 directing recovery of excess payment made to t'ne petitioner, is hereby quashed. If ihe amount has a'ready been recovered, the petitsoner is entitied to refund of the said amount, subject to verification of facts. However, iiberty is reseroed to the State/respondents to take any steps, if so advised, in accordance with law for recovery of excess payment, if any. The .oetition is ailowed to the extent indicated above. 10. There shal! be no order asto costs. Arun Sd/- SatishK.Ag"itlom Judge ' K.P.;S) No. 3663 of 2009