6 3 ’BEL HIGH COURT OF CHHA BILASPUR w. P. (S) No. Q3 09 /2011 /' Krishna Kumar Tiwari S/o Shri Ramlal Tiwari,_ Aged about— 65 years, Retd. Upper Division Teacher, Village Bhardakala PETITIONER Tehsil~ Gunderdehi, District— Durg (c.G.) Versu s State of Chhattisgarh, Through:— The Secretary‘ Education Department, D.K.S. Bhawan Raipur, Distt.— Raipur District Education Officer, District— Rajnandgaon, Rajnandgaon (C.G.) Principai, Government Higher Secondary School, Surgi, District— Rajnandgaon (C.G.) Treasury Officer, Rajnandgaon District~ RajnandgaoniCG.) Divisional Joint Director, Treasury, Accounts and Pension Department, Raipur (C.G.) RTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA. I I Q) ? W‘w IN THE HONL TTISGARH AT RESPONDENTS WRIT PETITION UNDER A HIGH COURT OF CHHATHSGARH : BILASPUR WRIT PETITION (S) NO.809 OF 2011 PETITIONER Krishna Kumar Tiwari Versus RESPONDENTS State of Chhattisgarh & Others (Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India) Single Bench : Hon’ble Shri Satish K. Agnihotri, J. Present :- Shri Basant Dewangan, Advocate for the petitioner. Shri Ajit Singh, Panel Lawyer for the State. ORDER ORAL (Passed onthis 10‘ day of February. 2011) Heard learned counsel for the parties. By the present petition, the petitioner challengesthe order dated 5.6.2010 (Annexure P/1) whereby a sum of ? 36.626l- has been deducted from the retiral dues of the petitioner, holding it to be excess payment made to the petitioner, during the course of his serVICe. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner, working as Upper Division Teacher, retired from service on attaining the age of superannuation on 31.7.2007. During the course of settlement of retiral dues, a sum of ? 36,626l- was deducted holding it to be excess payment made to the petitioner during- the course of his service. Learned counsel further submits that the issue asto whether recovery of excess payment for no fault of the employee can be made without following the principles of natural justice is no longer res integra. The same has been settled by Hon’ble Supreme Court in various decisions (See Syed Abdul Qadir and others v. State of Bihar and others’). This Court, relying on the above decisions has passed several orders, directing refund of the amount, if any, recovered from the employees, 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 from retiral dues can be made only in case if there was any misrepresentation or fraud on the part of the employee and the employee had knowledge that the payment was received in excess. The error, if any, could have been corrected within a short span of time from wrong payment. 1 (2009) 3 SCC 475 Learned counsel appearing for the respondents does not dispute the above submission made by learned counsel appearing for the petitioner. However, he submits that the similar order may be passed. subject to verification of facts. This Court, as well as the Supreme Court, in a catena of decisions, time and again reiterated that no recovery of excess payment for no fault of the employee can be made without following the principles of natural justice. This Court in Ramchandra Kurup v. State of C.G. & othersz and other connected matters, decided on 23rd 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 are three conditions wherein the excess payment may be recovered, namely 4i) 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 .......... " ln view of the forgoing, the impugned order dated 5-6-2010 (Annexure P/2) directing recovery t 36,626l- on account of excess payment made to the petitioner, is hereby quashed. lf 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. 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 employee, or the employee had the knowledge 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. The writ petition is accordingly disposed of. 10. No order asto Costs. Sd/- Satish K. Agnihotri Judge Gowri 2 W.P.(S) No. 3663 of 2009