e^ \ IN THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF CHHAmSGARH ATBILASPUR W.P.fSl N0. 'RB&S?S« i USO /2010 '3SR>s^ ',S-..i^,",^ -:^^ 'ENEj?'s PETITIONER RESPONDENTS o f..-'/^-' >^^^Syva- <^''.-^-'.NXo^; $^'?0?; Dhaneshwar Prasad Rathore, S/o Late Shri Thaila Ram Rathore, Retired Head Master, aged about 70 years, R/o P.0. Nadourkantha, Tahsil _ Sakti, Distt. Janjgir-Champa (C.G.) VERSUS > : 1. State of Chhattisgarh Through :- The Secretary, School Education Department, D.K.S. Bhawan, Raipur (C.G.) // 2. Divisional Joint Director, Treasury Account 85 Pension Bilaspur, Division Bilaspur, Distt. Bilaspur (C.G.) WRIT PETITION UNDERARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA. 3slil;Sisill -^':;t3~s& PETSTiONEI HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH : BiLASPUR WRIT PETITION (S) N0. 480 OF 2010 Dhaneshwar Prasad Rathore RESPONDENTS State ofChhattisgarh & Another (Writ Petition under Articie 226 of the Constitution of India) Smgle Bench : Hon'ble Shri Satish K. Agnihotri, J. Present:- Shri Somkant Verma, Advocate for the petitioner. Shri N.N.Roy, Panel Lawyer for the State/respondents. ORDER fORAU (Passed on 10 day of February, 2011) 1. By the present petition, the petitioner challenges the order dated 14.2.2007 (Annexure P/1), whereby a sum of Rs. 1,11,857/- has been deducted from the retirai dues of the petitioner, holding it to be excess payment made to the petitioner, during the course of his service. 2. Shri Verma: learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner retired from sen/ice on attaining the age of superannuation on 31.12.2001. During the course of settlement of retiral dues, a sum of Rs. 1,11.857/- was deducted holding it to be excess payment made to the petitioner during the course of his sen/ice. 3. Shri Verma, further submits that the issue asto whether recovery of excess payment for no fauit of the emp!oyee can be made without foliowing the principies of naturai justice is no ionger res integra. The same has been settied by Hon'ble Supreme Court in various decisions (See: Syecf Abdul Qadir and offiers v. State of Bihar and others). This Court, relying on the above decisions has passed severa! orders, directina refund of the amount, if any, recovered from the emDtoyees. where the employees were not given any opportunity to explain about the excess payment, if any, made to them. Shri Verma further contends that any recovery frorR retiral dues can be made oniy in case, jf there was any misrepresentation or fraud on the part of the empioyee and the eoiployee had knowiedge that the payment was received in excess. The error, If any, could have been corrected within a short span of time from wrong payment. ' (2009) 3 SCC 475 ^..-A.^ y/ ~ S.-e" 4. Learned counsel appearing for the respondents does not dispute the above submlssion made by learned counsel appearing for the petitioner. However, he submits that the similar order may be passed, subject to verification offacts. 5. This Court, as well as Hon'ble Supreme Court, in a catena of decisions, time and again reiterated that no recovery of excess payment for no fauit of the employee can be made without following the principies of natural justice. This Court in Ramchendra Kurup v. State of C.G. & offtere and other connscted matters, decided on 23 November, 2009, 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 ars three conditions wherein the excess paymeni may be recovered, namely (i) excess payment was made on account of misrepresentation or fraud on the part of the empioyee, (ii) the empioyee had knowledge that the payment rsceived was in excess, and (iii) the error Was corrected within a short span of time of wrong payment...;....." 6. !n view of the forgoing, the impugned order dated 14.02.2007 (Annexure P/1) directing recovery Rs. 1,11.857/- on account of excess payment made to the petitioner, is hereby quashed. If the amount has already been recovered, the petitioner is entitled to the said amount with interest at the rate of 6% per annum, subject to verification of facts. 7. However, liberty is reserved to the State/respondents that if the excess payment has been made on account of misrepresentation or fraud on the part of the smployee, or the employee had the knowlsdge that the payment received by him was in excess, fresh orders may be issued on verification of the facts, after affording opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. 8. Accordingly, the writ petition is accordingiy disposed of. No order asto costs. Sd/- Satish K. Agnihotri Judge ashok W.P.(S)No. 3663 of 2009