O R D E R

The writ petitioner was a Physical Education Teacher and he retired from service on 30.05.1995. The impugned order of recovery has been issued based on the audit objections stating that the fixation of pay effected to the writ petitioner was erroneous and not in accordance with the Government Orders in force. Thus, the excess payment made to the writ petitioner is sought to be recovered.

2. The learned counsel for the writ petitioner states that no notice or opportunity was given to the writ petitioner before issuing the impugned order of recovery. Thus, the impugned order is in violation of the principles of natural justice.

3. The learned counsel appearing for the first respondent brought to the notice of this Court that the Honourable Supreme Court of India has fixed the ratio in the case of Chandi Prasad Uniyal and others Vs. State of Uttarakhand and others, reported in (2012) 8 SCC 417, and the same is to be followed as precedent, wherein it has been held as follows:-

“14.We are concerned with the excess payment of public money which is often described as “taxpayers' money” which belongs neither to the officers who have effected overpayment nor to the recipients. We fail to see why the concept of fraud or misrepresentation is being brought in such situations. The question to be asked is whether excess money has been paid or not, may be due to a bona fide mistake. Possibly, effecting excess payment of public money by the Government officers may be due to various reasons like negligence, carelessness, collusion, favouritism, etc. because money in such situation does not belong to the payer or the payee. Situations may also arise where both the payer and the payee are at fault, then the mistake is mutual. Payments are being effected in many situations without any authority of law and payments have been received by the recipients also without any authority of law. Any amount paid / received without the authority of law can always be recovered barring few exceptions of extreme hardships but not as a matter of right, in such situations law implies an obligation on the payee to repay the money, otherwise it would amount to unjust enrichment.”

4. The three Judges Bench of the Honourable Supreme Court of India in the case of State of Punjab and others Vs. Rafiq Masih (White Washer), reported in (2014) 8 SCC 883, also reiterated the principles laid down in the case of Chandi Prasad Uniyal (cited supra) as stated above and held that the law laid down by the two Judges Bench of the Supreme Court of India is to be followed as precedent in the matter of recovery of excess payment to the employees by the State or Union, wherein it has been held as follows:-

“7. In Chandi Prasad Uniyal's case (Supra), a specific issue was raised and canvassed. The issue was whether the Appellant-therein can retain the amount received on the basis of irregular/wrong pay fixation in the absence of any misrepresentation or fraud on his part. The Court after taking into consideration the various decisions of this Court had come to the conclusion that even if by mistake of the employer the amount is paid to the employee and on a later date if the employer after proper determination of the same discovers that the excess payment is made by mistake or negligence, the excess payment so made could be recovered. While holding so this Court observed at paragraphs 14 and 16 as under:

“14. We are concerned with the excess payment of public money which is often described as "taxpayers' money" which belongs neither to the officers who have effected overpayment nor to the recipients. We fail to see whey the concept of fraud or misrepresentation is being brought in such situations. The question to be asked is whether excess money has been paid or not, may be due to a bona fide mistake. Possibly, effecting excess payment of public money by the government officers may be due to various reason like negligence, carelessness, collusion, favouritism, etc. because money in s