J ^ C^-)^^ IN THE HON'LBEL HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR W. P. fS)No. J^^ /2010 PETITIONER RESPONDENTS ^1 ^^^ ^ ^' j^ Smt. Sara^vati Devi Wd/o Late Shri Nemsingh Verma aged about- 60 years, Village Ghumka, Tehsil & District- Rajnandgaon (C.G.) Versus State of Chhattisgarh, Through:- The Secretary, ^) Education Department, D.K.S. Bhawan Raipur, Distt.- Raipur ^-2. District Education Officer, Rajnandgaon, District- Rajnandgaon (C.G.) ^3. Block Education Officer, Rajnandgaon, District- Rajnandgaon (C.G.) ^4. Divisional Joint Director, Treasury, Accounts & Pension department, Raipur (C.G.) WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA. .'••"<i^h>' ^" JJ' mGHCOURTOF CHHATTISGARHATBILASPUR PETmONER WRIT PETmON (S) No. 145 of2010 : Smt. Saraswati Devi. VERSUS RESPONDBNTS : State ofChhattisgarh & Others. Writ Petition Under Article 226 QfThe Consttotion OfIndia SB: Hon'ble Shri Satish K. Aanihotri. J. Present: Shri Aniip Majumdar, Advocate for Ae petitioiwr. Shri A-V.Shridhar, Panel Lawyer with Shri M.P.S.Miatia. Deputy Govemment Advocate &r State/tespmidents. ORALORDER (Passed oa 21" day of Jaauaiy, 2010) 1. With the ciasent ofthe parties, the matter is heard finally. 2. By the present petiticm, the petitioi»r ehaUei^es tke urder dated 26.03.2009 (Aanexure P/3) whereby a sum of Rs. 34,634/- has been ordered to be deducted ftom the retiral daes ef the husband of the petitioner, holding it to be exeess payment nwde to tfae husband offlie petitioner, during the courseofhis service. 3. Shri Majudar, leamed counsel appearing fw (he petitionw sdbmits that flie husband ofthe petitioner, woridng as Head Master, tetited fiiom service on attaining the age of superannuatimi on 25.01.2009. Duriag tfae eouise of settlement ofretiral dues, a sum ofRs. 34,634^ was orteed to be dedacted holding it to be excess payment made to flie husfcand of flie petitianer during the course ofhis service. 4. Shri Majumdar further submits fliat the iggue asto whetiiCT reeovsry of esscess payment for no fault of the employee can be made wiAout following the prineiples of natural justice is no longer res integrtt. The same has been settled by Hwi'ble Supreme Court ia various decisiong (See Syed Abdul Qadir and others v. State ofBihar and ather/). This Court, relying on flie above deeisions has passed several ordecs, direeting refund ofthe amount, ifany, recovered fiumthe eniployees, where the employees were not given any opportunity to explinn about the excess paymeat, if any, made to tlwm. Shri Majnmdar further contends that aiy teeovery fi^m 1(200&)3SCC475 i; T 8. retual dues can be made only In case iftfiere was aay nusrepresefiBBion ot fraud on the part ofthe employee and tfie eaaployee hsd knowledge that fhe payment received was in excess, and tfae em>r was cuiectad within a shart span oftime of wrong payment. Leamed counsel appearing for the respondents does not dispute tte above submission made by leamed eounsel appeariag for tto petitioner. However, he submits that the similar order msy be passed, subject to verification offacts. This Court, as well as Hoa'ble Suiaeme Coiat, in a cateaa of decisiom, time Mid again reiterates tiiat no reeovery afexee®paymenit far ao fault of the employee can be made without followiag (he principles of aatiasl justice. This Cowrt in Ramchandra Kurup Vs. State ofC.G. <6 others^ and other connectsd matters, decided on 23 Naivember, 2009, obsen^d as uader: "19. A conuaon thread ninning into the abovc deeisions of the Su^eme Court is that, for recovery of excess payment of emoluments/aUowatices, there are three caiditions wherein the excess payment may be recovered, nanely (i) excess payment was made on account of nusrqaesaitatioa <w fiaud on Ae part offlie eiaployee, (ii) the enyloyee had knowledge that <he payment received was in excess, aiid (iu) the enBr was correeted witfun a short span of time of frrong payuient.........." In view ofthe forgoing, the petitiim is aUowed.Accordingly, the impugnsd order dated 26.03.2009 (Annexure P/3) duecting recovery Rs. 34,634/- on account ofexcess payment made to the husband ofthe petitwner, is hereby quashed. Ifthe amount has atoady beea recoveied, the petitiwier is entitled to tfae said amount with iaterest at the rate of 6% per aiuum, subject to verification offacts. No order asto costs. Sd/- SATISH K. AGNMOTRI Judge .Amit— W.P.(S) No. 3663 of 2009