a IN THE HON’BLE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR w.P. (S) No. AW? OF 2010 f. PETITIONER Smt. Iza Bel Masih, aged about 56 ‘ years, Wd/o Late Shri Yashwant Masih, (Retired Jeep Driver) Akikrit Pariyojana Prashasak Adiwasi Vikas Pariyojana, Gaurela, District Bilaspur (C.G.) VERSUS RESPONDENTS :— 1f State of Chhattisgarh, through the Secretary, General Administration Department, D.K.S. Bhavan, .Raipur (C.G.) 2./Joint Director, Treasury, Account and Pension, Bilaspur Division, Bilaspur (C.G.). 3.6 Project Administrator (Pariyojana Prashasak) Akikrit Adivvasi Vikas Pariyojna, Gaurela, District Bilaspur(C.G.). Wm CONSTITUTION OF INDIA ..mk. e, vf‘w” m’“\’3)\f§......... Wefzag" ................. §axgé ..... . h HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WRIT PETITION gS) No. 4719 of2010 PE'ITI‘IONER : Smt. Iza Bel Masih. . VERSUS RESPONDENTS : State of Chhmtisgarh & Others. WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE g26 OF l$ CON§TII Q ILON QF ggQIA SB: Hon’hle Shri Satish K. Agnihotri, J. Present: Shri'Rahul Birthaley, Advocate for the petitioner. ‘ Shri Aj'rt Singh, Panel Lawyer for the State. ORDER (ORAL) O7 day of February, 2011) (Passed on 1. The husband of the petitioner, while working as Jeep Driver, retired ham service on 20.07.2008 on attaining the age of superannuation. The petitioner is aggrieved hy the order dated 16.11.2009, whereunder a sum of Rs. 1,17,386f- has been directed to be deducted h'om the pensionary benefits, holding it to be excess payment made to the husband ofthe petitioner during the course of his service. 2. According to the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, the impugied recovery has been made without aEording an opportunity of hearing tothe petitioner, and further, the issue asto whether recovery of excess payment can be made without following principles of natural justice is no longer res integra, the same has been settled by the Supreme Court in the matter oftS-ahib Ram v. State ofHaryana and others’, and thither followed by this Court in the matter of Vidyadhar Tiwari v. The State of Chhattisgarh & Othersz and Vidya Shankar Tiwari v. State ofMP. Wow State ofChhattisgarh) and others; and thereaher followed in several decisions. 3. This Court in Ramchandm Kump v. State ofC.G. &‘0thersl‘and other connected matteis, observed as under : 1 1995 Supp (1) scc is 2 2006 (1) MPHT 105 (CG) 3 2006 (2) MPHT 31 (CG) 4 2010 (3) CGLJ 400 I»... (n. “19. A common thread running into the above decisions ofthe Supreme Court is that, for recovery of excess payment of emoluments/allowances, there are three conditions wherein the excess payment may be recovered, namely (i) excess paymem was made on account of misrepresentation 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 span of time of wrong payment......" Learned counsel appearing for the State/respondents does not controvert the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioner and submits that this matter may be disposed of in the same terms. In view of the foregoing and as admitted by learned counsel appearing for the parties, this petition is disposed of in the terms of the order passed in the case of Ramchandra Kump". Le. the impugned order dated 16.11.2009 (Annexure PIS) regarding recovery of amount of Rs. 1,17,386/- from the retrial dues of the petitioner on account of excess payment, is hereby quashed. The petitioner is entitled to full pensionary be'nehts/gatuity amount without any deduction. If the amount has been recovered, the petitioner is entitled to the said amount with interest at the rate of 6% per annum. However, it is open to the respondents to take recourse to Rule 65 of the Chhattisgarh Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1976, if so advised, in accordance with law, atter following basic principles of natural justice. It is further made clear that in the event before recovery of the alleged excess payment was made, a show cause notice was issued and reply was filed by the petitioner to the same, the case of the petitioner may not be treated to be covered by the decision ofthis Court in Ramc’handm Kurup". Ashok /Al . Satlsh K. Sd/- Agnlh / ‘ Judge otri i