a^ \<^-^ a^ IN THE HON'BLE HIGH COTTRT QF CHHATTISGARH ATBILASPUR (W.P. (S)No. ..~..7.SZ^....../09) PETITIONER RESPONDENDS VERSUS : 1. Ao. <a~--' 2. ^' o o ^. ^ 4s 3~- ^' »0" !A ^ Jagdish Baidh S/o. Late Shri Pandit Jugal Kishor Baidh, aged about - 66year, R/o. Nisharabad Colony Kunkuri, Tahsil - Kunkuri, Distt. Jashpur (C.G.) State ofChhattisgarh, Through : Secretary Tribal welfare Department, D.K.S. Bhavan, Raipur (C.G.) The Block Education Officer, Tribal welfare Department . Kunkuri , Tah - Kunkuri District Jashpur (C.G.) The Assistant Director, Treasury Accounts& Pension Division Office, Bilaspur (C.G.) The Treasury Officer, Treasury Office Jashpur District Jashpur (C.G.) WRIT PETITIONUNDERART!CLE 226 OF CONSTITUTION OF INDIA 3. 4. ^-'^a^-uamad—lhmffi-resDe£l,fiiUY_begsto submit as HIGH COURT OF CHHATTiSGARH AT BILASPUR WRIT PETIT10N (S^ No. 5853 of 2009 PETITiONER RESPONDENTS Jagdish Baidh. VERSUS State of Chhattisgarh &.0thers. r PETITiON UNDER ARTiCLE 226 OF THE CONSTiTUTiON OF !ND!A Present: Shri Vineet K. Pandey, Advocate forthe peiiTioner. Shri A.V.Shridhar, Panei Lawyer for the State/respondsr.1 f' 1 (Passed cn 08'" dav cf January. 2010) jf; 2. 3. Wlth the consent of learned counsei appearing for the parties, the petition is heard finaliy. The petltioner, working as Assistant Teacher, retired from servlce on attaining the age of superannuation on 30.07.2005 from fhe office of Biock Education Officer. Kunkuri, District Jashpur. Chailenge in this petition is to the order doted 04.10.2005 (Annexure P/1), whereby a surn of Rs. 19.315/- has been ordered to be deducted from the retiral dues holding it to be excess payment made to the petitioner during the course of his service, Learned counsel appearing' for ..the peTitioner submits that the petitioner was not given any opportunity to explaln about the payment made to him. Thus, fhe impugned order is vitiated for want of compliance of the principies or naturaS justice and fsir piay in action. Learned counsel further submlts that there is no Tauit on the part of the petitioner and the amount was paid to him in accordance with the pay scaies, revised and fixed by the respondents from time to time. The respondents cannot recover ihe amount, atready paid to the pet'tioner without foi!owing the )rinclpies of natural justice. ••"*«„ Leamed counsel appearing for the respondents submits that if the excess payment was made to the petitioner, the same can bf recovered at the time of settiement of retiral dues. The issue asto 'A'hether recovery of excess payment for no fault of th.e employee can be made without rollowing the principles of justice is no longer res integra. The same has settled by Hon'bie Supreme Court in various decisions. in Syed Abdul Qadir and others vs. State of Bihar and others , Hon'ble Three Judges of the Supreme Court, h.aving considered ail the aspects of the matter and the decisions rendered by the Suprem< C.ourt in the past. observed as under: "57. This Court, in a catena of decisions, has jranted reiief against recovery of excess payment of emoluments/allowances if (a) the excess amount was not pald on account of any misrepresentation or fraud on the part of the employee, and (b) if such excess payment v/as made by the emptoyer by applying a v/rong principle for ca!cu!ating the pay/gliowance or on the basis of a particuiar interpretation of rule/order, 'which is subsequently found to be erroneous. 58. The reiief against recovery is granted 'by courts not because of any right In the employees, but in equity, exercising judicial discretion to reiieve the empioyees frorn the hardship that wil! be caused if recovery is ordered. But, if in a given case, it is proved that the employee had knowiedge that the payment received was in excess of what 'was due or wrongly paid, or in cases where the error is detected or corrected within a short time of v/rong payment, the matter being in the reairn of judlciai discretlon, courts may, on the facts and circumstances of any particular case, order for recovery of the amount paid in excess. See Sahib Ram v. State of Haryana, Shyam Babu Verma v. Union of india, union of India v.- M. Bhaskar, V. Gangaram v. Director, Col. i.J.Akkara (Retd.) v. Govt. of India, Purshottam Lal Das v. State of Bihar, Punjab Nationai Bank v. Manjeet Singh and Bihar SEB v. Bijay irf, 1 (2009) 3 SCC 475 ^ .^Jf^-^'-'^ 3r ,„»„ T &•^y^j ^ ^' 6. This Court as Vi/el! as Hon'ble Supreme Court in a catsna of decisions, time and again reiterates that no recovery of excess payment for no fault of the employee can be made without following the principies of natural justice. This Court In Ramchandra Kurup Vs. State of C.G. & others and other connected rnatters, decided on 23ro November, 2009, observed "19. A common thread running into the above decisions of ihe Supreme Court is that, for recovery of excess payment of emoiuments/allowances, ihere are three conditions wherein the excess payment may be recovered, nameiy (i) excess payment was made on account of misrepresentation or frauti on the part of the employee, (ii) the empioyee had knov/ledge that the payment received was ;n excess, and (iil) the error was corrected within a shori: span of time of wrong payment." of the forgoing, the petition is allowed. The irnpugned ted 04.10.2005 (Annexure P./1), dlrecting recovery of Rs. on account of excess payment made to the petitioner, is juashed. !f the amount has already been recovered, the is entitled to the said amount with interest at the rate of annum, subject to verification of fads. No order asto in vlew order d< 19,315/- hereby costs. Sd/- SatishK.Agnihotri Judge W.P.(S) No. 3663 of 2009