•^ ^^ \^^ /. BEFORE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR W. P. (S) No. i/Z^g /2009 i^ -wKiv PETITIONER ../-^ ^^...^^> ^}^^.^ ,/••" >s-^y ,sc" ^ ^-•' VERSUS RESPONDENTS 1) 2) 3) 4) Ji\^nlal Chandrakar S/o- Late Shri Amruram Chandrakar, Aged about 69 years, R/o.- Village - Mohad, Ward-no.44 District- Rajnandgapn (C.G.) State of Chhattisgarh, Through Secretary, school Education Department, D.K.S. Bhawan, Raipur (C.G.) District Education Officer, Rajnandgaon, Collectorate, District- Rajnandgaon (C.G.) Divisional Joint Director, Directorate -of Treasury, Accounts and Pension Department, Raipur (C.G.) District Treasury Officer, Rajnandgaon, District- Rajnandgaon (C.G.) 5) 'Block Education Officer, (Drawing and Disbursing Officer), Rajnandgaon, Distn^j^ Rajnandgaon (C.G.) WisS^ 'ais — WRIT PETITION UNDERARTICLE 226 QF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA. Tli/^ /^l^n.1 HIOH CQURT OF CHHATTISGAKH AT mLASPUR WRTT PETTHON fS~) No. 4258 of2009 PETmONER : Jivrakhanlal Chandrakar. -^' . , . ,. VERSUS . • RESPONDENTS : State ofChhattisgarii & Others. WRIT PETmON UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTrTUTION OF INDIA SB: Hon'bte Shri Sattsh K. Aenaiotri. J. Preseut:^ri AnupMqumdai. Advocate&rlhe petitioner. Sl]riP.K.Bhaduri,PanelLawyerfortheStA«/respondeittsl,2&5 ORDKRnMlAD (Passed on 09'°day of September, 2009) Heard eounsel for the parties. 1. By this petition, fhe petitioner impBgps fhe order dated 25B1 Aujpist, 2003 ^(Annffisure P/3)pas dbythe respondent No.3,'wfaereby asumofRfc 22,83'Ty- tos beeudeducted holding itto be excess payment made to te petitione(,^lrom his retiral dues. ; 2. Shri Majumdar, leamed counsel appearing for fhe petitioner sutamts that the issue asto whether recovery ofexcesspaymentcanbe made withoutfollowing principles ofnaturaljusticeis no longer res integra, the same has been settled by the Supreme Court intilie matter ofSahib Sam v. State ofHaryind and otherS^,and further followed by this Court iathe matter pfVidyadharTrwariv. TheStatecfChhiWsgarh&C)ther^w^Vii^ShcMkwS^a}fv.State^ ^Ncw StatevfGhhattisgarh) amtother/. &i the instairt case, the inyugied order has been passed witfaout affording any opportunity ofhearingtpthe petitioner. 3. Sla-iBhaduri, leamedPanel Lawyer does not coitfrovert the allegation ffiat no opportunity ofhearing was afforded before tfae impugned orders wa-e passed. However, he relies on Rule 65 of flie Chhattisgarh Givil Serrices (Pgision) L1995Suro(l)SCX:20 22006(1)MPHT405(GG) 3 2006^(2) :MPHT3i(CQ) '^^ Rules, 1976 (forshort'theRules,1976')forfhepurpose of recovery and adjustmentofOovemmentdues. '. 4. The contention ofthe petitioner thateven for exercising power tmder Rule 65 ofthe Rules, 1976, basie principles ofnaturaljustice and fair play in aetion are .crequired to be followed. In the present case, the State/authorities hav< not afifOTded aiy opportunity of hearing to the petitioner to put forward his ease asto why the deduction from the gratuity amouirt being excess amount eannot be made. The contention of the leamed counsel for fhe petitianer merits aficeptance. .. 5. This Court, in the ease of Vidyadhar Tiwari (supra), has held that the excess payment, ifany, made to the petrtioner, he was not at fault and the amouHt received by him mi^it have beea used by adjustii% himsetf aecordingly treatmg fhe same as his salaiy. At this stage, directing reeovery ofthe alleged excess amoiint from fhe pensionary benefits/yatuity amoiuit of fhe petitioner will not bejust and proper. 6. InviewofthefoTegomgandasadmittedbyleamedTOunsel appearing for the parties, this petition is allowed in theterms ofthe orderpassed inthe case of Vidywihar Tiwari (supra) i.e. the unpugned order dated 25 August, 2003 (Annexure P/3) dedueting asum ofRs. 22,837/- from the retiral duesofthe petitionCT is hereby quashed. The petiti<mCT is entitled to fiill pmsionary benefits/gratuity amoimt without any dedyction. Ifftie said amount is already deducted from tfae gratuity, the same shall be payable to the petitioner with simple interest @ 6% per annum ftom fhe date it became due till the payment is made. However, it is open to the respondents to take recourse to Rule 65 of the Rules, 1976, if so advised, in accordance with law, after following basie prinCiples ofnaturaljustice. No order asto costs. Amit Sd/- Satish K. Agnihotri Judge