^^"" ^y ^ ^ (J? \0^^ - IN THE mGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR W.P.CS)NO. hf/^- / 2010 s PETITIONER VERSUS RESPONDENTS 1:^' A^- ?..l-'.'^..>\^.-'<'< <^ .y^^y •y^-">" 2. 3. 'Smt Prafulit Lakra, W/o Shri Nayansukh Lakra, aged about 64 years, Retired Teacher, (Tribal Department) R/o Village-Khonna, P.S. & Tahsil Pratappur, Distt. Surguja (C.G.) State ofChhattisgarh Through- the Secretary, Department of Tribal Development, D.K.S. Bhawan Raipur (C.G.) The Joint Director, Treasury, Accounts and Pension, Bilaspur Division, Distt. Bilaspur (C.G.) Block Education Officer, Pratappur, Distt. Surguja (C.G.) WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLES 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WRIT PETITION (S) No. 1012 of2010 PETm'ONER : Smt. Praftilit Lakra. VERSUS RE8PONDENTS : State ofChhattisgarh & Others. WJUT PE'HnoN UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUI'ION OF INDIA SB: Hon»bleShri Satish K. Aanihotri, J. Present: Shri A.N.Pandey, Advocate for the petitioner. Shri N,N.Roy, Paiiel Lawyerforthe State/resposidents. PRDER(ORAL) (Passed on 13th day of January, 2011) 1. The petitioner, while working as Assistant Teacher, retired from service on attaitimg the age of superannuation on 31.03,2008. Thereafter, vide the impugned order dated 27.02.2009 and 29.08.2009 (Amiexure P/l and P/2), the petitioner was directed to deposit a sum of Rs. 5,20.530/- holding it to be excess payment made to the petitioner duringthe course ofhis ser^ice. 2. Shri Paiidey, leamed counsel appeamig fbr fhe petitioner submits that the petitioner was not given aiiy opportunity to explaiii about the alleged excess payment made to him and vide the impugned orders, a sum of Rs. 5,20,5307- was dii'ected to be recovered irom fhe retrial dues ofthe petitioner. Thus, the action ofthe respondent authorities is vitiated for waiit ofcompliance offhe principles ofnaturaljusticeand fair play in action. He further submits that there is no fault on fhe part ofthe petitioner and the amount is paid to him in accordance with the pay scales, revised and flxed by the respondents from time to time. No reason has been assigned asto on which count the excess payment, if / .^,<-;" {^ '^-ss^s^^' f Qb any was made. The respondents cannot recover the amount, already paid to the petitioner, afier his retirement and that too, without followingthe principles ofnaturaljustice. 3. Shri Roy, leamed Panel Lawyer appeai-ing for tfae State/respondents submits that it is not clear from tiie pleadings asto whether or not,any show cause notice or opportunity of hearing was afforded to the petitioner before fhe recovery ofexcess payment was made. 4. The issue asto whether recovery of excess payment can be made without following principles ofnatoraljustice is no longer res integra^ the same has been settled by the Supreme Court in the matter oSSahib Ram v. State ofHaryana ancl others1, and further followed by tiiiis Court in the matter QfVidyadhar Tiwari v. The State ofChhattisgarh & Others1 and Vidya Shankar Tmari v. State ofM.P. (Now State of Chhattisgarh) and others3 andthsrea8.er followed in several decisions. 5. The Supreme Court, in P.Tulsidas & Others v. Govemment ofA.P. & Others, obser^ed that the benefit accnied earlier by way of grant of higher pay or revised pay, cannot be taken away as the sanie is violative of Article 14 and 16 of fhe Constitution of India being arbitrary, unreasonable and expropriatory. 6, This Court mRamchandra Kurup v.State ofC.G. & Others atidother comiected matters, observed as under : "19. A common thread running into the above decisions of the Supreme Court is lly95Supp(l)SCC18 2 2006 (1) MPHT 105 (CG) 32006(2)MPHT3l(CG) 4AIR2003SC43 5 VVP (S) No.3663 of2009 decided on 23-11-2009 ^s":i-% 1 %^^ t ^ t 11 is'k :.^ that, tbr 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 tlie pail ofthe employee, (ii) the employee had knowledge that the payment received was m cxcess, and (iii) tiie error was corrected wifhin a short span oftime of wrong paymont......" 7. In view ofthe foregomg aiid as admitted by leamed counsel appearing for the parties, tihis petition is disposed ofin the terms ofthe order passed m fhe case of Vidyadhar Twari. i.e. the impugned orders dated 27.2.2009 and 29.08.2009 (Annexure P/l and P/2) regardmg recovery of amount from fhe gratuity aiid other dues ofthe petitioner on account of excess payment is hereby quashed. The petitioner is entitled to fall pensionary benellts/gratuity amount without any deduction. tffhe amount has been recovered, the petitioner is entitled to the said amount with interest at tfae rate of6% per annum. 8. However., it is open to tfae respondents to take recourse to Rule 65 of the Chhattisgarh Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1976, ifso advised, in accordance with law, after following basic principles of natural justice. It is further made clear that in the event before recovery ofthe alleged excess payment was made, a show cause notice was issued and reply was filed by the petitioner to the same, the case ofthe petitioner may not be treated to be covered by the decision ofthis Court m Vidyadhar Tiwcsri2. Sd/- Satish K. Agnihotri Judge Ainit