S2NGLESENCI .^ ^ f". T l^r^ IN THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WRIT PETITION fS) N0. ^6^ /2010 PETITIONER Dev Narayan Patet S/o. Umed Ram Patel,aged about 67 years/ R/o. Viltage : Parshadakhurd, Post : Temar Tahsil : Sakti, District : Janjgir-Champa (C.G.). )N— RESPONDENTS AQA// ^y w .-<^ w ^ \ . ^ ^ ( S.R^^s^^ j ^ ,^\. {^—^£ ^%^ VERSUS ^ 1] State of Chhattisgarh, Through : The Secretary, Education Department, Government of Chhattisgarh, D.K.S. Bhawan, Raipur, District : Raipur (C.G.). / 2] The District Education Officer, Janjgir, District : Janjgir-Champa (C.G.). /3] The Joint Director, Accounts Treasury & Pension, Bilaspur, District : Bilaspur (C.G.). 4] The District Treasurer Officer, Janjgir, District : Janjgir-Champa (C.G.). ^ -..-..--t'.s "\ 3 WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 /227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA . i": iiifiKCUURT OF CHHATTSSGARH :;BILASPUR WRIT PETITION (S) N0. 746 OF 2010. PETITIONER DevNarayanPatel . Versus RESPONDENTS State of Chhattisgarh & Others (Writ Petition under Articie 226/227 of the Constitution of india) Single Bench : Mon'ble Shri Satish K. Agnihotri, J, Present:- Shri Pushpendra PateJ, Advocate for fhe petstion Shri P.K. Bhaduri, Panet Lawyer for the State. ORDERrORAL) (Passedonthjs 28th dayofApri}, 2011) Challenge in this petition is to the orderdatsd 04.04.2005 (Annexure P/1)whereby, asumofRs. 14,066/- has been directed to be recovered from theretrial dues of the petitioner; hoiding itjto beexcess payment made to the petitioner during the courseof his setvice. Learned counsei appearing for the petitioner subfnits that the petitioner, whiie working as Upper DSvision Teacher, r^tired from semce on 31.05.2004, ori attaining the age of Superannuation.AcGording to the petitioner, the impugned recoveiy 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 foilowing principies of ngtura! Justice js no ionger res OTfe^ra, the same has been settled by the Supreme Court in the matler of jSahib f?am v. Stote of Ha/ya^ anof off?©r^,and further followed by thls Court in the matter of Vsdyac^iar T'fwari v. The State of ChhaWsgarh & 0^?ers2 and Vfdya ShanksrTiwan v. StateofM.P. (Naw Stateaf Chha sgarh)ancl ather^ and thereafter foilowed in several decisions. Jtus Cawt mRamchandf'a Ktfwp v. State of C.G. & Offjers4Qnd other connected matters, observed as under: st19. A common threod runnir^^^ sbove cteclslons of ff^ Supi'eme Cqurt is that, for recbvery of excess paymeRt of emolunwnts/alkwances, there are three concfi&>ns whefBin the excess f^yment may be recovered, namety (i) excess 11995Supp(15SCC18 2200'6(1)MPHT105(CG) 32006(2)MPHT31(CG) 42010(3)CGLJ400 ^o ^- 6. payment was ma(^ on acaauni of misrepresentation or traud on the part of the emptoyee, (ii) ihe empfoyee had knowtedge that the payment receiVed was sn excess, and (ai) the em>r was conected wiffjin a shofi span of time of wrong payment.^^" Learned counsel appearing for the State/respondents does not controvert the submissions made by iearned counsel for the petitioner and submits that this matter may be disposed of in the same terms. in view of foregoing and as admstted by Searned counsel appearing for the parties, this petition is disposed of in the terms ofthe order passed In the case of RBmahandra Kurup4. i.e. the impugned order dated 04.04.2005 (AnnexureP/1) regarding recovery of an amount of Rs. 14,066/- from the retrial dues of the petitioner on acoount of exc^ss payment, is hereby quashed. However,it is open to the respondents to take recourse tothe provisions of the Chhattisgarh Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1976, if so advised, in accordance with law, affcer fojiowing basic principles of natural justlce. Sd/- SatishK.Agnihotri Judge <y\ Aum