BER3 RE THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR W.P.(SlNo. '2-H<< /2012 v. State of Chhattisgarh, Through-lts Secretary, Panchayat & Rural Development Departnnent, D.K.S. Bhawan

Learned counsel further contends that any recovery can be made only in case there was any misrepresentation or fraud on the part of employee and the employee had knowledge that the payment was received in excess. The error, if any, could have been corrected - within a short span of time from wrong payment. ,4. Learned counsel appearing for the State does not advert to the allegation that before passing the impugned order regarding recovery of excess payment, no opportunity of hearing was afforded to the 1 (2009) 3 SCC 475 :''^p Learned counsel submits, on other petitioner. statutory remedy of appeal is available and secondly a circular was ^\ issues, issued thereunder the recovery has been made. Learned counsel next submits that, in fact, while calculating and computing the pay along with taking into account the increments to be paid the length of service to be calculated is the length of service in a particular grade, but the petitioner is claiming that the benefits of the increment should be granted taking into consideration the whole length of service rendered by him in any of the Grades of Shiksha Karmi.

Be that as it may, even if there is a provision to prefer an appeal, this is competent to exercise its extraordinary jurisdiction in the Court facts, as afforested. The circular by itself cannot be made applicable without affording proper opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. This Court in Ramchandra Kurup v. State of C.G. & others and other connected matters, decided on 23 November, 2009, observed as under: is that, "19. A common thread running into the above decisions of the Supreme Court .for recovery of excess payment of emoluments/ there are three conditions wherein allowances, 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.........." the forgoing, the impugned orders dated 3-12-2011 In view of (Annexure - P/1), 11-5-2009 (Annexure - P/5) & 19-8-2011 (Annexure - P/6), in respect of the petitioner, are quashed and the recovered/deducted, may be refunded to the if any, amount, petitioner, subject to verification of facts.

However, liberty is reserved to the State/respondents that excess payment has been made on account of misrepresentation or the employee, or fraud on the part of the employee had the knowledge that the payment received by him was in excess, fresh orders may be issued on verification of the facts, after affording opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. The writ petition is accordingly disposed of. No order asto costs.