Research › Search › Judgment

Chhattisgarh High Court · body

2009 DIGILAW 355 (CHH)

SHAKUN DEWANGAN. v. STATE OF C. G.

2009-12-03

SATISH K.AGNIHOTRI

body2009
ORDER (ORAL) Heard. 1. Challenge in this petition is to the order dated 31.1.2009 (Annexure P/1), whereby a sum of Rs. 32,350/- (Rupees Thirty Two Thousand, Three Hundred and Fifty) towards excess payment made to the husband of the petitioner has been directed to be recovered. Accordingly, after death of her husband, the petitioner has been directed to deposit the above sum so that necessary steps may be taken for grant of pension. 2. Learned counsel appealing for the petitioner submits that the husband of the petitioner was not given any opportunity to explain about the payment made to him. Thus, the impugned order is vitiated for want of compliance of the principles of natural justice and fair play in action. Learned counsel further submits that there is no fault on the part of the husband of the petitioner and the amount was paid to him in accordance with the pay scales, revised and fixed by the respondents from time to time. The reason assigned for recovery is not sustainable, as there was no fault on the part of the husband of the petitioner. The respondents cannot recover the amount, already paid to the husband of the petitioner without following the principles of natural justice. 3. Learned counsel appearing for the respondents submits that by mistake extra wages were granted to the husband of the petitioner, thus, the above recovery. If the excess payment was made to the petitioner, the same can be recovered at the time of settlement of retrial dues. 4. The respondent-authorities have not followed the principles of natural justice and the impugned action has been taken without affording an opporturuty of hearing to the petitioner. The practice of passing order involving civil consequences, without show cause notice or without affording an opportunity, is condemned. 5. The issue as to whether recovery of excess payment for no fault of the employee can be made without following the principles of natural justice is no longer res integra. The same has been settled by Hon 'ble Supreme Court in various decisions. In Syed Abdul Qadir and others Vs. State of Bihar and others-1 , Hon'ble Three Judges of the Supreme Court, having considered all the aspects of the matter and the decisions rendered by the Supreme Court in the past, observed as under: 1. (2009)3 SCC475 "57. The same has been settled by Hon 'ble Supreme Court in various decisions. In Syed Abdul Qadir and others Vs. State of Bihar and others-1 , Hon'ble Three Judges of the Supreme Court, having considered all the aspects of the matter and the decisions rendered by the Supreme Court in the past, observed as under: 1. (2009)3 SCC475 "57. This Court, in a catena of decisions, has granted relief against recovery of excess payment of emoluments/allowances if(a) the excess amount was not paid on account of any misrepresentation or fraud on the part of the employee, and (b) if such excess payment was made by the employer by applying a wrong principle for calculating the pay/allowance or on the basis of a particular interpretation of rule/order, which is subsequently found to be erroneous. 58. The relief against recovery is granted by courts not because of any right in the employees, but in equity, exercising judicial discretion to relieve the employees from the hardship that will be caused if recovery is ordered. But, if in a given case, it is proved that the employee had knowledge that the payment received was in excess of what was due or wrongly paid, or in cases where the error is detected or corrected within a short time of wrong payment, the matter being in the realm of judicial discretion, courts may, on the facts and circumstances of any particular case, order for recovery of the amount paid in excess. See Sahib Ram Vs. State of Haryana, Shyam Babu Verma Vs. Union of India, Union of India Vs. M Bhaskar, V Gangaram Vs. Director, Col. B.J. Akkara (Retd.) Vs. Govt. of India, Purshottam Lal Das Vs. State of Bihar, Punjab National Bank vs. Manjeet Singh and Bihar SEB Vs. Bijay Bhadur." 6. This Court as well as Hon'ble Supreme Court in a catena of decisions, time and again reiterates that no recovery of excess payment for no fault of the employee can he made without following the principles of natural justice. This Court in Ramchandra Kurup Vs. State of C.G & others W.P. (S) No. 3663 of 2009 and other connected matters, decided on 23rd November, 2009, observed as under: "19. This Court in Ramchandra Kurup Vs. State of C.G & others W.P. (S) No. 3663 of 2009 and other connected matters, decided on 23rd November, 2009, observed as under: "19. A common thread running into the above decisions of the 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 payment 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........." 7. In view of the forgoing, the petition is allowed. The impugned order dated 31.1.2009 (Annexure P/1), directing recovery of Rs. 32,350/-, on account of excess payment made to the husband of the petitioner, is hereby quashed. If the amount has already been recovered, the petitioner is entitled to the said amount with interest at the rate of 6% per annum. No order as to costs. Petition Allowed.