^ ^ \ y^7, ^NfiLE BEWCH IN THE HON'BLE HI6HCOURT OF JUDICATURE AT BILASPUR (C.G.) WRIT PETETEON ( S) N0. ^KSD OF 2009 PETETEONER: F>^^" ^.x<^y .•f'\ '?.& -••' .•••'' <>•'.' .<?-. ..-•"fe^"^ .,»"',c9i\y ^p--"' t^^/" .'i';1 ^" <'"' .A- fiopalPrasad Sahu S/o. Late Shri Anandram Sahu, aged about 63 years, occupation - Retired Peon, from the office of District Education officer Tamnar, Distt.- Raigarh (C.G.) VERSUS RESPONDENTS The State of Chhattisgarh, Through the Secretary Tribal Welfare Oepartment, t)KS Building Raipur (C.6.) The District Education officer, Raigarh, Distt.- Raigarh ( C.G.) 3. The Block Education officer, Tamnar, Ositt.-Raigarh (C.G.) /•' 4. Joint Director, Account and Pension, Bilospur Division Bilaspur ( C.G.) ./' 5. District Account officer, Raigarh, Distt.- , Raigarh (C.G.) 6. Sub Accountant officer, fiharghoda, Distt.- Raigarh (G. 6.) WRIT PETETCON UNDER ARTCCLE 226 OF CONSTCTUtEON OF IN6IA. ^ : HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH LBILASPUR Wnt Petition (S) No. 6430 of 2009 Petitioner GopalPrasad Sahu Versus Respondents TheState ofChhattisgarh & ottiers WRIT PETITION UNDERARTICLE 226 OPTHE CONSTrTUTlON_QFyNDIA (SB: Hon'ble Shri Satisli K. Agiuhotri J.) Shri SuaU Sahu.AdvQca.tc for fhe petitioiier. SUri Yashwaat Sin.gh Thakur, Deputy Advocate General for fhe respondents. O RD E R (Oralt (Passed on this 2nd day ofFebruary, 2010) 1. WifhfheGonsentoffheparties.fhe ina.tter is beard finatly. 2. ChaUenge ia this petition is to the order dated 16.7.2008 (Aimexure P/l),whereby, accordrag to fhe petidoner, a sum of Rs. 59,656/- (Rupees Fifiy Nine Thousand, Six Hundred aad Fifty Six ) ( vide Armexure P/3), towards excess payment m.ade to the petitioner has beeu directed to be recovered fixiin the retiral dues. 3. Leamed counsel appearing for the petitioner subinits that fhe issue asto whefher recoveiy of excess payment for no fault of the eiuployee caa be inade wifhout foUowitig fhe principles of natural justice is no longer res integra. The same has been setfled by Hou'ble Supreuie Court iu various decisions (See SyedAbdul Qadir aad others vs. StateofBiharaadttthers1). This Court, relying on the above decisions has passed seveial orders, directing reftmd of the aOiount, ifaay,recovered froni the eiiiployees, where the ^niployees were not given aay opportunity to explain about the excess payiu.ent, if aay, uiade to them. 4. Leamed counsel appearmg for fhe respondents does not dispute the above submission made by leamed couasel appearing for ' (2009) 3 SCC 475 I'lllillliia'E^nianiigasiB — -1- the petitioner. However, he subinits that the simflar order inay be passed,- subject to verification of facts, asto whether the petitioner has obtamed fhe excess amount on inisrepresentation or inisleading the fact. Tliis Couit as weU as Hon'ble Supreiae Court ia a catena of decisions, tune aad again reiterates fhat no recoveiy ofexcess payment for no faidt of fhe einployee caa be inade without foUowiag fhe principles of natural justice. This Court in Ramchaadra Kurup Vs. State 6f G.G. & others2 and other coruiected matters, decided on 23rd November, 2009, observed as under: "19. A conimon.thread ruiuung into the above decisions of fhe Supreiue Court is that, for recoveiy of excess payment of einoluiaents/aUowaaces, there are fhree conditions wherein fhe excess payineut may be recovered, namefy (i) excess payineut was inade on accoiuit ofnusrepresenfation or fraud ou the part of fhe einployee, (ii) fhe eiuployee had knowledge that fhe payiaent received was iu excess, aad (iiij the error was corrected within a short span of time of wrong payinent..........'' 6. J»K Thaktu- In view of fhe settted position of law on the poiat, the petition deserves to be aud is aUowed. Accordingly, it is directed ttiat if the aniount, if aay, has already been recovered, on accouut of excess paym.ent made to the petitioner, the same raay be refunded to the petitioner wifh iaterest at fhe rate of 6% per aanum, subject to verification of facts, asto whether the petitioner has obtaiaed the excess aiuount on luisrepresentation or misleadaig fhe fact. No order asto costs. ^: Sd/- SatishK.Agnihotn -•"-—Judge;'.. 2 W.P.?Sj No. 3663 of 2009 vw^mwwsssswvm.ss'saseysss'ssssssa'si' 1