^Mfsi r.: <y f^^ BEFORE HON'BLE HIGH COURT_QE^HHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR W. P. fS) No. U^lt /2009 PETITIONER ^ ^" ^-o^ ^^•""" Keja Ramteke W/o- Late Shri J.R.Ramteke, Aged about 65 years, R/o.- Mamta Nagar, District- Rajnandgaon (C.G.) » VERSUS RESPONDENTS 1) 2) State ofChhattisgarh,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-) WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTiTUTION OF INDIA. 3) i .'• l^';-'i-;"?.; HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARHATBILASPUR (Hon. Mr. Justice Pritinker Diwaker) Writ Petition No. (S) 4511 of2009 PETITIONER Keja Ramteke VERSUS RESPONDENTS State of C.G. and others Shri Anup Majumdar counsel for the petitioner. Shri Ajit Singh PL for the respondents/State. ORDER (14.12.2010) The petitioner who is a retired assistant teacher has filed this petition praying for the follpwing reliefs: (i) That the order dated 24.4.2006 (Annexure P-2) passed by Respondent No.1 may kindly be set aside to the extent of giving effect the date of second up-gradation from 1.8.2003 and monetary benefits from April 2006 instead of 17.3.1999. (ii) That, order dated 23.8.2007 (Annexure P-3) passed by District Education Officer to the extent of granting second up- gradation with effect from 1.8.2003 and the recovery order from the gratuity payable to petitioner (Annexure P-4) may be set aside/quashed. (iii) The respondent authorities may be directed to repay the amount of the excess payment shown to be made to the petitioner on account of difference of dates while giving effect the second up-gradation with an interest @ 12% per annum. (iv) Petitioner may be granted regular pay scale and seniority from their initial date of appointment along with arrears and with interest upon it. (v) Any other relief may also be granted to the petitioner which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case. •^- ^ J' .W:4J %£®s^' ^) While arguing the case, counsel for the petitioner submits that except relief clause No. 10.3, he would not press this petition with respect to the other ones and for that he seeks liberty to file appropriate petition if occasion arises. Thus the reliefs claimed at clause No. 10.1, 10.2, 10.4 and 10.5 are struck down as not pressed with liberty assought for. A 2. Grievance of the petitioner herein is that vide Annexure P-4 an amount of Rs. 28,207 has been recovered from him without an opportunity ofhearing which is impermissible inlaw. 3. Counsel for the respondents/State though supports the recovery \sought to be made from the petitioner, he does not dispute that no opportunity of hearing was afforded to the petitioner before issuance of the recovery order. 4. Undisputedly, before passing the order impugned regarding recovery of the access payment made to the petitioner, no opportunity of hearing has been given to the petitioner nor has any show cause notice been issued to him. The fact whether recovery of the excess payment for no fault of the employee can be made without complying with the principle of natural justice is no longer res integra and the same has been settled by the Supreme Court in various cases including the case in the matter of Sahib Ram vs. State of Haryana and others reported in 1995 Supp (1) SCC 18 and in the matter of Syed Abdul Qadir and others v. State of Bihar and others reported in (2009) 3 SCC 475 and relying on that judgment various orders have been passed by this Court also directing refund of the excess amount if any recovered from the employees. He submits that any recovery from the retiral dues can be made in case there was any misrepresentation or fraud committed by the petitioner and that he had the knowledgethat the payment received by him is in excess. The aforesaid view has further been re-affirmed by the Apex Court in the matter of Yogeshwar Prasad and others v. National Inst. Edu. Planning and Admn. and others in Civil Appeal Nos. 288-289 of 2005 vide order dated 21.10.2010. Practice of passing the orders involving civil consequences without giving show cause notice to the petitioner can no longer be approved. ^r^ :^-s'" ^r 5. Accordingly, the petition as far as it relates to the relief clause No. 10.3, is allowed. Order impugned is hereby set aside. Amount recovered so far is directed to be refunded to the petitioner with interest at the rate of 6 per cent per annum. No order as to costs. Needless to say that the respondents can always take the recourse to Rule 65ofthe Chhattisgarh Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1 976 if so advised in accordance with law after following basic principles of natural justice. I— Sd/- Pritinker Diwaker Judge