O R D E R

The writ petitioner was employed as Headmistress and retired from service on 30.09.2003.

2. The learned counsel for the writ petitioner states that a sum of Rs.78,540/- said to be an excess payment is sought to be recovered from the writ petitioner and a sum of Rs.7,795/- is being deducted from 31.08.2015 onwards.

3. The learned counsel for the writ petitioner further states that no notice or opportunity was given to the writ petitioner before deducting the amount said to be excess. Thus, the action of the respondent is in violation of the principles of natural justice.

4. The learned Government Advocate appearing for the 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, https://hcrseervpicoesr.etcoeurdts.g ovi.inn/hc se(rv2ic0es1/ 2) 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 se