$§§§§QLE §E%€§H BEFORE THE HON BLE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR (C G) Writ Petition (S) No €9§71 I2o1o PETITIONE \Q. gwg‘aggan Smgh Solankl S/o Late Shrl Jalram Smgh Solank1 aged about 60 years Occupation — Retired from the post of Manchltrakar Department of Revenue V ReSIdent of Mahuapara Phundrudlharl TahSII — Amblkapur Dtstnct — Surguja (C.G.) VERSUS g’ :1. State of Chhattisgarh, Through ' Secretary of Revenue Department, D.K.S. Bhawan, Mantralay, District — Raipur C.G.) (r ( 2. The Joint Director Treasury Accounts and pension; Arnbikapur, ,Distriot — , Surguja (C.G.) RESPONDENTS The Collector, Surguja, Ambikapur, District — Surguja (C.G.) WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA \_ i q meH COURT OF CHHATnseARH BtLASPUR ‘. k ‘ WRIT PETmON (S) No 6754 OF 2010 Ir (Writ Petition under Article 226 of the C nstitutton of India) t j § Singie Bench Hon’bte Shrl Satlsh Agnihotn J 4 Presentra ShnSunuTnpathI,Advocate for epetmoner Shrl Ajlt Smgh Panel Lawyer for the State ORDER {ORAL} (Passed on 14‘“ day of Merch 201 1) A1. ,:Challenge In this petmen Is to the order dated 09 O7 2010 (Annexure a P/1) whereby, a sum of Rs 152 651I— has been dumcted ta he ( recovered from the retrial dues of the petitioner holdmg 1t to be excess payment made to the petutioner during the course of his service 2. Learned counsel appeanng for the petmoner suhmlts that the j petltloner while working as Manchltrakar In the Revenue department retlr from servrce on 30062010 on attamlng the age of ' ‘superannuatron According to the petrtloner the impugned recovery has{been made Without affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and further the issue asto whether recovery of excess payment can be made Without followmg principtes of naturat Justice is no longer res integra the same has been settted by the Supreme Court in the matter of Sahib Ram v State ofHaryana and others and I further fottowed by this Court in the matter of Vidyadhar Tlwan v The . State of Chhattlsgam & Othersz and Vtdya Shankar Tiwarl v State of MP (Now State of Chhattlsgarh) and others and thereafter followed in several decismns i 3. ZThiai Court in Ramohandra Kurup v state of O.G.<& Others" and other connected matters observed as under l “19 A common thread runmng Into the above decisions of the Supreme Court Is that, for recovery eof excess payment of ‘1 i 1 l i l i i 1 i v' g ‘19953u (1)scc18 if? 220060) PHT105(CG) 1 2006(2) PHT 31 (CG) ‘l 2010 (3) OGLJ 400 E f PETITIONER, ‘ , Babban Smgh oiankl Versus a } M RESPONDENTs . State of Chhatti garh&0thers ) tsmn/n h a emolumen/allaces tere re three H ‘ conditians wherein fhe excess payment , ' a l s rrsnt r ra h ar i a n e a p on i n ou o th Statehonnt o ot orv b ad b uns o r and submits tt thrs mattr my be disped of In te same terms ha e a os h or t b e unse ea o ar h r . m s un l l . e o l id h hhr i c e les 976 so dvs However it ts open to the respondents to take recourse to Rule 65 of te Cattisgah Crvl Semes (Pnsion) Ru 1 If aied m accordance With Iaw afternfoitowing basrc prinoiples of naturat iustice. I ‘ i Sd/_ l i Satish K, Agnihoth‘ ( my be recovered namey 0 exces e ; payment was made on account df ‘, misepeeaaon o fu on te pt of the employee (!) the employee hed knowledge tht the paymet rceived ws , In excess and ('11) the e r was corrected within a short san of lime of wrg payment...... ”” he l w Leared cnsel appearing fr e espdes des n ,l cntoert the sumissmns me y learned coel fr the petmoner ln View of the fegomg and as admtte§d y Iearnd cot apprlng fr the ptles this petmon Is disposed of m te terms of the oder . , passed in the case of Remchandra Kump Ie the impugned order ’ t dated 09.072010 (Annemre Pl1») regardmg recovery of ah aountof R: ’1,52,651l7 fromythe retriatdues of the/petitioner on aocot Iof excess payment, Ais heteby’qyashed. The petitioner is entitled to fut pensionary benetitslgraxtuity amount without any deduotion lf th amount has been recvered, the petitioner is entited to the, sa amount ’r