BR ILASPU WRIT PETITIOMS) No. l8§ L / 2098 ‘ g: PETITIONER z ' /Kundma-Namd o, S/o Late Sarjuram, ‘ . i i ‘ . Aged abeut 63 years, R/e‘ Khamar Ra’ad‘ 1 / Puraria Baz, Dhramjaigarh, ‘ mstt. Raigarh ( (3.6 ) w \9» *a‘a " VERSUS ’ i / RESPQNDENTS : 1 State of Chhausgarh t ‘ Through Secretary Pubhc Heaith Beparkment, ' D K S Bhawah, Marxtralay, Ra1pur (C G ) : : ’ k - ‘51 2. The Assistam Directcr, i Treasuries Accounts and Pension, ‘t B11aspus’, D1stt Biiaspur (C G) E I H , e9? \ $9 “WrbloQ § dg 3 / The Rmgaxh/ ChlefDkiIstt /ed1ca1 Rat:arh Heaith fCG) Officer ' Jf‘o 4;,9’ 4 Block medical Officer, ‘ Dharamjaigaa-h Diett Rmgarh {C G ) WRIT PETITION WBER ARTICLE 226 9F THE CONSTITETIOH OF INBIA ‘ i 6 HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH : BILASPUR WRIT PETITION (S) NO. 1852 OF 2008 PETITIONER Kundrulal Namdeo Versus RESPONDENTS State of Chhattisgarh & Others (Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of india) Single Bench Hon ble Shri Satlsh K Agmhotrl J Present :- Ms Sharmila Slnghai Advocate for the petitioner Shri V.V.S. Murthy, Dy. Adv. Generai forthe State. ORDER ORAL (Passed on this 23r day of April, 2010) Heard learned counsel for the parties, l. Challenge in this petition is to the order dated 11-12-2007 (Annexure P/1) whereby it has been directed to recover a sum of l Rs.61,807/— from the petitioner, holding it to be excess payment made to the petitioner, during the course of his service. 2. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the »? petitioner received a communication dated 11—12-2007 (Annexure E P/1) issued by the respondent authorities whereby it has been directed to recover a sum of Rs.61,807/— from the petitioner holding it to be excess payment made to the petitioner, during the course of his service. 3'. 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 the Supreme Court in various decisions (See Syed Abdul Qadir and others v. State of £1 u“ % Bihar and others’). This Court, relying on the above decision has passed several orders, directing refund of the amount, if any, recovered from the employees, where the employees were not given any opportunity to expiain about the excess payment, if any, made to them. Ms Singhai further contends that any recovery from retirai 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, 4. The State in its return submits that opportunity of hearing was afforded to the petitioner, but it has not averred that the excess payment was made on account of misrepresentation or fraud by the petitioner. 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 fault of the employee can be made without following the principles of natural justice. This Court in Rantchandra _Kurup v. State of C.G. & othersz and other connected matters, observed as under: f/. “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 (i) excess payment was made on account of misrepresentation or fraud on the part of the employee, (ii) the 1 (2009) 3 scc 475 2 w.P.(S) No. 3663 or 2009 (decided on 23-1 1-2009) 2 e 7’7”” \ l l @ a employee had knowledge that the payment received was in excess, and (iii) the error was corrected within a short span of time of wrong In view of the forgoing, the impugned order dated 11-12-2007 (Annexure P/7) directing recovery Rs.61‘807/- on account of excess payment made to the petitioner, ‘is hereby quashed. if the amount has aiready been recovered, the petitioner is entitied 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 his 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. No order asto costs. l Sd/- l Satish K. Agnihotri ‘ Judge