^,^1^5-0, -l- IritUeHon'bleHjshCburtofCllhattisUearhatBilaspurfC.G,) petitioner Respondents M 117/^r^y VJVy '>.-' ^ ip' W.P.(S)No. 2009 .^•AanandSingh,aged65years, Son oflate Shi-i Tribhuwansitigh, Retired Head Masfer, Block Gunderdehi DistriGt Ditrg. .Vfirsus:! . ::' ::1: '-:";•; ./^'l. State Govemment ofC'Ufaattishgarh.,^ ThroiigUthe Secrclaryy: : .^-;^ D.K.S. Bhavan, Raipur (C.Gr.) -2.I5rnsi6nalJbintIMre(^or^8gll,Ijeldiai&. Pension,) GhadiC'hoHlt.R.aipur^C.Q.) 3. .BlocfcEducation^Qffieer, Gunderdehi, :.,^^Il)lstri(^Du!rg:<e.(Jr;)i.:1^'; l:.^,r', -^:. • :•,, -; :!iR .! Writ Peiitioa^unfleB3^iSclca(2^<c>:FtliE^E(iin;stil^^ issuanee bf Writ ofMandamus/Dlre<^Oi ;6ra^ writ. ' . • • '. :;: ::'' : ';:;' ;:•.'• . :; •:.:,:1;:-^- <:; HIGH GOURTQFCMHATTISGARH : BILASPUR WRIT PETSTION (S) N0.2521 OF 2009 PETITiONER AanandStnah RESPONDENTS Versus State Government of Chhattisgarh & Others (Writ Petition under Articie 226 of the Constitution of india) Single Bench : Hon'ble Shri Satish K. Agnihotri, J. :- Shri Somtant Verma, counsei for fhe petitioner. Shri Y.S. Thakur, Dy. Adv. General forthe State. ORDER CORAL) (Passed on this 22nd day ofJanuary, 2010) 1. With the consent of the iearned counse! appearing for the parties, thepstition is heard finaily. 2. Learned counsel appearing for th6 petitioner submits that vkie the impugned order dated 31-1-2006 (AnnexureP/1) asum of Rs.20,076/- towards excess payment made to the petitioner has been dirscted to be recovered from the refiral dues. Shri Verma further submits that the punitive order of recovery has been passed without affording an opportunity af hearing. 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 principies of natural justtce is no longjer res integra. The same has been settled bv the Suoreme Court in a catena of decisions (See Syed Atidul Qadirand others vs. State of Biharand others}. This Court, relying on the above decisions has passed severa! orders, directing refund of the amount, if any, recovered from the employees, where the employees were not jivsn any opportunify to expfain about the excess payment, if any, made to them. 4. - Leamed counse! appearing for the State/respondents on the basis of repiy submits that there wsre some irregularities in calculation of pay fixation, which came into notice after retirement of the " (2009) 3 SCC 475 petitioner. Thus, the impugned order was passed. However, tearned counsel submits that smce no oppdrtunity of hearing was afforded before passing the impugned order, liberty may be granted fo the rsspondent/Stateto take steps for recovery of any excess amount after foilowing the due process of lawand afteraffording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. This Court as well as the Supreme Court in a catena of decisions, time and again reiterates that no recovery of excess .payment for no fault of theempioyee can be made. This Court in Ramcftancfra Kunip Vs. State of C.G. & others and other connected matters, decsded on 23 November, 2009, obseryed as under: "19. A common thread running into ttie above decisions of th®Suprsme Court is that, for recovery of exeess payment of emoluments/allowances, there are thrse conditions wherein the excess payment may be recovered, namely (i) excess payment was made on account of misrepresentation orfraud on the part of the empioyee, (ii) the employee had knowiedge that the payment received was in excess, and (iii)the error was corrected a short span of time of wrong In yiewof the settted Dosition of !aw on tHe Doint, the Detition deserves to be and is allowed. Accordingly, the impugned Qrder dated 31-1-2006 (Annexure P/1), directing recovery of Rs.20,076/-, on account of excess payment made lo the petitioner, is hereby quashed. iftheamount has already been recovered, the petitioner is entitied to the said amountwith interestat the rate of 6% per annum, subjectto verificationof facts. No order asto costs. Gowri Sd/- SatishK.Agnihotri Judge W.P.(S) No. 3663 of 2009