y^]A wsit IN THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISHGARH AT BILASPUR (C.G.) W.P.(S) No. ^3 I 2010 7 Petitioner f^ \ ^^.^ ^)%^^ "M{,'€--"' .<r" \ .:•••' ^y^-" ''^" Sadhu Ram Guru aged 63 years Son of Shri Binjhwar, ^v^ Retd. Upper Divison Teacher, Govt. Girls Hr.Sec. School, Dongargaon, R/o Sewatapara, Dongargaon, Distt. Rajnandgaon.(C.G.) Versus ^ Respondents 1 State Government of Chhattishgarh, Through the Secretary, School Education Department, D.K.S. Bhavan, Raipur (C.G.) 2. Divisional Joint Director, Kosh, Lekha and Pension, Raipur CG 3. District Treasury Officer, Rajnandgaon. Writ PetitjonundeLArticle226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of writ of Mandamus/direction or anv other aDDropriate writ. HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH : BILASPURJ Writ Petition (S) No.l23of2010 Petitioner Sadhu Ram Guru Versus Respondents State Goyernment of Chhattisgarh 85 others WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTIQN QF INDIA (SB: HonTale Shri Satish K. Agnihotri J.) Shri Shyam Shrivastava, Advocate for the petitioner. Shri N. N. Roy, Panel Lawyerfor the respondents. O^DER_(Orall (Passed on this 11th day ofJanuary, 2010) 1. With the consent of the parties, fhe matter is heard finally. 2. Challenge in this petition is to the order dated 31.12.2008 (Annexure P/ 1), whereby asum ofRs. 34,374/- (Rupees Thirty- four Thousand, Three Hundred and Seventy-four) towards excess payment made to the petitioner has been directed to be recovered from the retiral dues. 3. Leamed counsel appearing for the petitioner subraits that the issue asto whether recovery of excess payment for no fault of fhe 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 vs. State of Bihar and others1). This Court, relying on the above decisions has passed several orders, direeting 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. 4. Learned counsel appearing for the respondents does not dispute " Jhe above submission made by learned counsel appearing for the petitioner. However, he submits that the similar order may be passed, subject to verification offacts. * (2009) 3 SCC 475 6. Thakur /• This Court as well as HonT^le Supreme Court in a catena of decisions, time and again reiterates that no recoveiy of excess payment for no fault of the employee can be made without following the principles of natural justice. This Court in Ratnchandra Kurup Vs. State of C.G. & others2 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 paynient of emoluments/allowances, there are three condidons wherein the excess payment 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 knowledge that the payment received was in excess, and (iii) the error was corrected within a short span of tinie of wrong pa.yment.........." In view of the settled position of law on the point, the petition deserves to be and is allowed. Accordingly, the impugned order dated 31.12.2008 (Annexure P/l), directing recovery of Rs. 34,374/-, on account of excess payment raade 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. No order asto costs. f-— Sd/- j SATISH K. AONIHOTM 1 Judge 2 W.P.(S) No. 3663 6f 2009