SHIV KUMAR SAHU Vs. STATE OF C.G.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) WITH the consent of learned Counsel for the parties, the petition is heard finally.

(2.) LEARNED Counsel for the Petitioner submits that the Petitioner while working on the post of "Sthal Sahayak" in the Water Resources Department, State of Chhattisgarh, retired on 30-06-2008 on attaining the age of superannuation. After retirement of the Petitioner, the State Government vide order dated 29-09-2008 (Annexure P/1) directed to recover a sum of Rs. 47,075.40 from the retiral dues of the Petitioner on the ground that excess payment has been made to him for the period from 01-04-1982 to 30-06-2008.

(3.) I have heard learned Counsel appearing for the parties, perused the pleadings and the documents appended thereto. The reliance of the State counsel on so-called undertaking obtained on 30-06-2008 does not deal with recovery of any excess payment when law is well settled that if on account of miscalculation or misinterpretation, excess payment has been made to the employee, the same may not be recovered, except in cases where payment was made on account of misrepresentation or fraud on the part of the employee. It is also not a case of the State that the Petitioner/employee knew the fact that the Petitioner was receiving excess payment. In that view of the matter, recovery of the amount by the impugned order is not sustainable in the eye of law.