SIMIalE :^1 © IN THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISG'ARH AT BILASPUR W. P. CS) No of 2010 PETITIONER .^f o^" ^ ^yy <ty ^ RESPONDENTS Smt. Chandra Kiran Shrivastava, aged about 63 years, W/o Late Umakant Shrivastava, Retired Upper bivision Teacher, Sarvedas Middle School, Rajnandgaon, R/o burga chowk, Rajnandgaon (C.G.) VERSUS / :1. State of Chhattisgarh Through : The Secretary School Education Department, D.K.S. Bhawan Raipur (C.6.) / 2. Joint Director Treasuries, accounts & Pension, Raipur, Oistrict-Raipur (C.&.) ^3. bistrict Education Officer, Rajnangaon, bistrict- Rajnandgaon (C.&.) /4. Block Education Officer, Rajnandgaon/ District- Rajnandgaon (C.&.) ^ /5. District Treasury Officer, Rajnandgaon, bistt. Rajhandgaon (C.&.) WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA. ^ ^v0 \^' HiGH COUR'I OP CHHArOSGAXH AT BILASPUR PETmQNER WRIT PETinON f8) No. 88 of2010 : Smt. Chandra, Kiran Shrivastava. VERS'US RESPONDENT8 : State ofChhattisgarh & Otfaers. Writ Petition Under Article 226 Of'The Constitution Of India SB: Hon'fele SSirf Satish K. Asnihotri. J. Present: Shri K.S.Pawar, Advocate fbrtiiepetitionCT. Shri Y.S.Thakur, Deputy Advocate General forfhe State/respondents. Qli(AL,Qm)IB (Passed on 1 Ith day of January, 2010) 1. With fhe consent of leamed counsel appearmg for the parties, the petition is heard fmally. 2. The petitioner^ woridng as Upper Division Toacher^ fetired fix)m swviee 011 attoming tte age of superaimuation on 30.11.2008 jfrom Sawedas Mtddle School, Rajnandgaon. Challenge in tfais petition is to the order dated 31.12.2008 (Annexure P/l), whereby a sum of Rs. 25.405/- has beea ordered to be deducted from the retiral due8 holdmg it to be excess payment made to the petitioner dixring tfae cour8e of his service. 3. Leamed counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioiier was not givea any opportunity to explain aboiit the payment made to him. Thw^ the impugned order m vitiated fbr want of compliance of the principl^s of natural justice and fair play in action. Leamed counsel farthCT submits that there is no fault on the part ofthe petitioner and the amount was paid to him in accordance wifh tfie pay scales^ rwised and fixed by ttie respondents irom time to time. The respondente eamiot recov^r the amount, already paid to th©petitioner without fbUowmg ttie principles of tmtural justice. ^ 4. Leamed eoiinscl appearing for fhe respondente siibmite that ifthe excess payment was made to fhe petitioner. tfie same can be recovered at tiie tiine of settlement ofretiral dues. 5. The issue asto whether recovery of ^scess payment fbr no fault of tfae employee can be made without tbllowing the principles oftiatoraljustice is no longer res mtegra. The same has been settled by IIoa?ble Supreme Court in variom decisions. In Syed Abdul Qadir and others vs. State qf Bihar and other$\ Hon'ble Three Jiidges ofthe Siipreme CoKrt, havmg considCTed all tfae aspecte of (he mattor and the decisiom rendered by the Supreme Cowt in the past obsewed a^ under: ^57, 'niis Court in a cataia of decisions. has granted rdief against recovery of ©xcess paymeat of j" emotoniesits/allowances tf (a) fte €^&^^^i^ not paid OB account ofany tnisrepresentation or frand on the part of the employee, and (b) if such excess payment Viras made by the employer by applymg a wrong prmciple fbr calculatmg the pay/allowaace or oa th©basls of a particuLir interpretation of role/ordCT, which is subsequently found to be erroneous. 58. The relief agaimt recovery is gi'anted by courts not becau^ of any right iii the ^smploy^s, but m equity, exercismg judicial discretion to relieve the employces from tlw hardship that will be caused tf recovery is ordered. But ifin a given case^ it is proved that titie employec had knowledge that the payment received was m excess of what was due or wrongly paid, or iti cascs where fhe orror is detccted or corrected witjtuxi a short time of wrong paym^nt, tfie mattcr being in tho realm ofjudicial discmtion, courts may, on fhe facte and circum^tances of any particular case, order for recovery of thc amoimt paid m excess. See Sahib Ram v. State of Haryana, Stiyam Babii- Verma v. Union of hidia, Uaion of India v. M. Bfaaskar, V. Grangaram v. Dii^ctor^ Col, BJ.Akkara (Retd.) v. Govt of India, Purshottam Lal Das v. State of Bihar, Punjab National Bank v. Manjeet iSin^bi and Bihar SEB v. Bijay Bhadur." 6, This Court as well as Hon'ble Supreme Court m a oatena ofdecisions^ tixne and again reiterates fhat no recovery of excess payment fbr no fault ofthe 3 (2009) 3 SCC 475 ^^^^ 7. ^ employee can be made without following the principles of natural justice< This Court m Ramchandra Kump Vs. State qfC-0. & other/ and other connected matteiis, decided on 23 Noveniber, 2009, obsewed as unxier: "19. A common thread mtmmg into tihie above docisions ofthe Suprcme Cowt is that, for rocovery of excess payment of emoliiments/allowatices^ thwe are three conditions wherein the excess paymeat may be recovered, tiamely (i) excess payment was made on account of misreptesentation or fraud on fhe part oftfae employee, (ii) fhe employee had knowledge that tte payment received was in cxcess, and (Hi) tfae wror was corrected witfun a short span of time of wrong psyment/9 In view ofthe fbrgoing., the petition is allowed. The impBgned order dated 31.12.2008 (Annexure P/l), directmg recovery ofRs. 25,405/- on aceount ofexce^s payment inade to the petitiotier, is h^reby quashed, Iftfie amoiitit has already been recovered, fhe petitioner is entitled to the said amoimt witli mterest at tfae rate of 6% per amium^ subject to verification oftacte. No order asto co^ts. Sd/- SatishK.Agnihotrl Judge Anut W.P.(S)NO. 3663 of2009