^(o HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH: BILASPUR Writ Petition (Sl No. 1948 of 2008 Petitioner Respondents Dr. Vijay Singh Rawany, S/o. Shri Dharam Singh Rawany, age about 63 years, Retd. Deputy Director, Vetnary Department, R/o. Kisan Rice Mill, Vivekanand Marg, Namnakala, Ambikapur, Distt. Surguja (CG). Versys 1) State Government of Chhattisgarh, through Secretary, Vetnary Department, D.K.S. Bhawan, Raipur (CG). 2) Divisional Joint Director, (Treasury, Pension & Accounts) Bilaspur Division, Bilaspur (CG). (Writ Petition under Article 226 ofthe Constitution of India.) SB: Hon'ble Mr. Satish K. Agnihotri, J. Present: Shri Ajay Shrivastava, counsel for the petitioner. Shri Arun Sao, Govt. Advocate for the State. ORAL ORDER (Passed on 4th day ofJuly, 2008) The petitioner while working as Deputy Director in Vetnary Department retired from services on attaining the age of superannuation on 31/10/2005. After his retirement, the petitioner received a letter dated 11-10-2007 (Annexure P/1) directing recovery a sum of Rs.49,562/- on account of excess payment made to the petitioner. 2) Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was not given any opportunity to explain the payment made to the petitioner. Thus, this order is vitiated for want of compliance of the principles of natural justice and fair play in-action. Learned counsel further submits that there is no fault on the part of the petitioner and the amount is paid to him in accordance with the pay scales, revised and fixed by the respondents from time to time. The respondents cannot recover the amount, already paid to the petitioner after his retirement, that too without following the principles of natural justice. 3) Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the respondents/State submits that it is true that no show cause notice was given to the petitioner and communications made between the officers was endorsed to the petitioner. The petitioner was not called upon - <r2- to submit his expianation for payment of aiteged exoess payment and rerovery thereafter. 4) The respondent-authorities have not foiJowed the principies of naturai justice and the impugned acfion has been taken without affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. The practice of passing order involving clvii consequences without show cause notice or without affording an opportunity, is condemned. Thus, this action of deducting Rs.49, 562/- from retirai dues is bad on account of the fact that the petitloner was not afforded any opportunity of hearing before the impugned action was taken, aiso. 5) The Hon$bie Supreme Court in the ease of SahSb Ram Vs. State of Haryana and others1 Ln para 5 has hefd ae under: "5. However, it is not on account of any misrepresentation made by the appeitent tnat the benefit of hlgher pay soate was .given to him but by wrong construction made by the PrincJpaS for whioh the appeJiant cannot be held to be at fault. Under the drcumstances, the amount paid tiii'date may not be recovered from the appeEIant." 6) The Hon!bie Supreme Court In the case of P. Tyjsidas andl others v. ©overnmentofA.P, and others2, observed that the benefit accrued earlier by way of grant of higher pay or revised pay, cannot be taken away as the same is vioiative of Article 14 and 16 of the Constitution of india being arbitrary, unreasonabie and expropriatory. 7) This Court, in the case of Vidhadhar Tiwari Vs. State of Chhattisgarh & others has heid that for the exoess payment, if any, made to the petitioner, he was not at fauit and the amount received by him mlght have been used by adiusting himseif accordingiy treating the same as his salary. Atthis stage, directing recovery of the aiieged excess amount from the pensionar/ benefits of the petitioner wili not be just and proper. 8) in view of the reasons mentioned hereinabove, this petitlon is aitowed. The smpugned tetter dated 11-10-2007 (AnnexureP/1) directing recovery a sum of Rs.49,562 on account of excess payment made to the petitioner, is hereby quashed. The petitioner is entitted to futi pensionary benefrts/gratuity amount without any deduction. ifthe amount has been recovered, the petitioner is entitted 11995Supp(l)SCC20 2AIR2003SC43 32006(1)MPHT105(CG) Raju -3- to the said amount with interest at the rate of 6% per annum. However, it is open to the respondents to take recourseto Rute 65 of the Chhattisgarh Civji Sewces (Pension) Rutes, 1976,if so advised, in accordance with law foiSowlng basic principies of naturai Justice. No order asto costs. Sd/- Satish K.Agnihotri Judge