wa C/{J tgD7/a IN THE HON’BLE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISHGARH AT BILASPUR (c.G._1 W.P.s No. £22‘ / 20170 $5N§LE 3EN€EH / /’ Petitioner Lakhanlal Sahu aged 63 years Son of Late Fattelal Sahu, 0 .I Retd. Asstt. Teacher, . 1. State GovernmentofChhattishgarh, Through the Secretary, School Education Department, f, D.K.S. Bhavan, Raipur (C.G.) 2. Divisional Joint Director, Kosh, Lekha and Pension, RaipurCG 3. District Treasury Officer, Rajnandgaon. Respondents Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of lndia for issuance of writ of Mandamus/direction or any other appropriate writ. f \? 0 5V o« 0w W ,é‘ :Wafl ”La\ Govt. Middle School, Margaon, Tah. Dongargaon, R/o Vill.Barsantola,PO-Rudgaon, Distt. Rajnandgaon.(C.G.) Versus \‘ Q HIGH COURT OF CHI-IATTISGARH A'I‘ BILASPUR WRIT PETITION (S) No. 222'of2010 PETITIONER : Lakhanlal Sahu VERSUS RESPONDENTS : State Government ofChhanisgarh & Others. ' wRrr PETmON UNDER AR’HCLE 226 OF THE CONSTITm‘ION OF INDIA s3: Ho‘n’ble 81m swish K. Agnmom, J. Present: Shn' Ajay Shu’vastava, Advocate for the petitioner. Shri AV. Sridhar, Panel Lawyer for the State/raspondéms. ORAL ORDER (Passed on 16m day of Mai-ch, 2010) With the consent of léamed counsel agpearing for the parties, the matter is heard iinally. 1. Challenge in this petition is to the order dated 23-44008 (Annexure P/l) whereby it has been directed to recover a sum ofRs. 42,026/- from the retiral V dues of the petitioner, holding it to be excess payment made to the petitioner, dming the couxse ofhis service. 2. Leamed counsel appearing for the petitioner submits tha the petitioner, working as Head Master, retired ham service on attaining the age of superammation on 30.04.2008. The petitioner received a communication dated 23-4—2008 (Annexm'e P/l) issued by the respondent authorities whereby it has been directed to recover a sum of Rs. 42,026I- h‘om theretiral dues of the petitioner holding it to be excess payment made to the petitioner, during the course of his service. Learned counsel Iin'ther submits that the issue asto whether recovery of excess payment for no fault of the employee can be made withmt following the principles ofnatural justice is no longer res integra. The-same has been settled by Hon’ble Supreme Court in various decisions (See SycdAbM Qrwr and others v. Sm afBilmr and others). nus Court, relying on the above. decisions has passed several orders, directing retimd of the amount, if any, recovered iiom the employees, Where the employees were not given any opportunity to explain about the excess payment, if any, made to merit. Shn‘ Shrivastava further contends that any recovery from retiral dues can be made only in case if there was any misrepresentation or hand on the part of the employee and the employee had knowledge that the payment was received in I 1 (2009) 3 SCC 475 @ 2 '/\ excas, " The error, if any, could haw been correcwd within a shott span of time mm wrong payment. Learned counsel appearing for the respondonts does not dispute the abow submission made by learned counsel appearing for the petitioner. However, he submits that the similar order may be passed, subject to veriiication offacts. 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 ofnamral justice. This Court in Kamchmdm Kurup v. State of CG. & «mars; and other connected matters, decided on 23" November, 2009, observed as under: “l9. A common thread running into the above deeisions of the Supreme Court is that, for recovery of excess payment of moments/allowances, there are three conditions wherein the excess payment may be recovered, namely (i) excess payment was made on account of nusrepresentation 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 apart of time of wrong payment.........." 6. In view of the forgoing, the impugnedorder dated 23-4-2008 (Annexure P/l) directing recovery Rs. 42,206/- on account of excess payment made to the petitioner, is hereby quashed. Ifthe amount has already been recovered, the petitioner is entitled to the said amount with interest at the rate of 6% per amunn, subject to verification of facts. 7. 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, hesh orders may be issued on veriiicatim of the facts, after mowing opportunity ofhearing to the petitioner. The writ petition is accordingly disposed of. 9. No order asto costs. SATISH K. AGNIHOTRI Judge / / " Casi/- cwri «Eisner “ w.r.(5) No. 3563 orzow‘ .,