DHARAM SAI Vs. STATE OF CHHATTISGARH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) With the consent of learned counsel appearing for the parties, the matter is heard finally. Challenge in this petition is to the communication dated 21.6.2011 (Annexure-P/1) whereby it has been directed to recover a sum of Rs. 73,485/- from the salary of the petitioner at the rate of Rs. 2,000/- per month holding it to be excess payment made to him.

(2.) Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is working on the post of Peon. The petitioner received a communication dated 21.6.2011 (Annexure-P/1) issued by the respondent authorities whereby it has been directed to recover a sum of Rs. 73,485/- from the salary of the petitioner at the rate of Rs. 2,000/- per month holding it to be excess payment made to him. Learned counsel further submits that the punitive order of recovery has been passed without affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. Learned counsel also submits that 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 the Supreme Court in various decisions (See Syed Abdul Qadir and others v. State of Bihar and others, 2009 3 SCC 475 This Court, relying on the above decisions has passed several orders, directing refund of the amount, if any, recovered from the employees, where the employees were not given any opportunity to explain about the excess payment, if any, made to them.

(3.) On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the State while supporting the impugned action taken by the respondent authorities submits that any amount paid/received without any authority of law can always be recovered. In support of his contention, learned counsel placed reliance upon the decision of the Supreme Court Chandi Prasad Uniyal and Ors. v. State of Uttarakhand and Ors., 2012 AIR(SCW) 4742.