Ramkumar Dubey, S/o Jaairam Dubey, aged about 63 years, etired Peon. Middie $c'nooi, Rajendra Nagar, Bilaspur, Block Bilha, Distrt Bi!aspur, R/o viage Mum, Pest Chakarbhatha, Tahsil Takhatpur, District Bilaspur (CG). Versus 1) State of Chhattisgarh, throug the Secretary. Education Department. D.K.S. Bhawan, Raipur (CG). 2) Joint Director, Treasury. Account & Pension. Bilaspur Division. District Biiaspur (CG). 3) District Education Ofiicer, District Biiasp (CG). Biiaspur, 4) PrincipaL rimary Middie Schooi, . aiendra Nagar, Biiaspur District { R , Biiaspur (CG). (Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of india.) Sinle Bench : Hon’ble Mr. Satish K. Agnihotri, J. g Present : Shri Kunai Das, counsei for the petitioner. hri Arun Sao, Govt. Advocate for the State. ORAL ORER D (Passed on 1 1‘“ clay ef September. 2008) With the consent of learned counsei appearing for the parties, the matter is heard finally. 2) The etitioner was initialiy appointed on 2?-9—1 970 in the respondents department. The petitioner retired from service on attaining t age of sperannuation on 3 4—2007. fter his etirement, he tione received a ietter dated 20-2007 (Annexure PIZ), irecting recovery of a sum of Rs.40,639/- on account of excess payment made to the petitioner. 3) Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was not given any opportunity to explain about me payment made to the petitioner. Thus, this order is vitiated for want of compiiance of the principles of natural justice and fair play in—action. Learned counsel further HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH: BILA8PUR Writ Petition i3) No. 5053 of 2008 Petitioner jj R ic ii Respondents h ur P S p s he u 1 A r t petir 3- d 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 frcm time to time. No reason has been assigned asto on which count the excess payment, if any, was made. The respondents cannot recover the amount, already paid to the petitioner after his retirement, that too without foilowing the principles of natural justice. 4) Learned counsel appearing for the respondents/$tate submits that it is true that no show cause notice was given to the petitioner. The petitioner was not called upon to submit his explanation for payment of alleged excess payment and recovery thereafter. 5) The respondent authorities have not foitowed the principies of naturat justice and the impugned action has been taken without attording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. The practice of passing order involving civil consequences, without show cause notice or without affording an opportunity, is condemned. Thus, this action of deducting Rs.40,639l- from retiral dues is bad on account of the fact that the petitioner was not afforded any opportunity of hearing before the impugned action was taken, atso. 6) The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Sahib Ram Vs. State of Haryana and others1 in para 5 has heici as under: “5. However. it is not on account of any misrepresentation made by the appellant that the benefit of higher pay scale was given to him but by wrong construction made by the Principe! for which the appeilant cannot be heid to be at fault. Under the circumstances, the amount paid till date may not be recovered from the appeiian ." 7) The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of P. Tulsidas and others v. Government of AP. and othersQ, observed that the benefit accrued earlier by way of grant of higher pay or revised pay, cannot be taken away as the same is violative of Article 14 and 16 of the Constitution of india being arbitrary, unreasonable and expropriatory. . 8) This Court, in the case of \fidyadhar Tiwari Vs. State of Chhattisgarh a othersa has held that for the excess payment, if any, made to the petitioner, he was not at fauit and the amount received by him might 1 1995 Supp (1) $CC 20 2 NR 2003 SC 43 3 2006 (1) MPHT 105 (co) have been used by adjusting himseif accordingly treating the same as his salary. At this stage, directing recovery of the aiieged excess amount from the pensionary benefits of the petitioner will not be just and proper. 9) In view of the reasons mentioned hereinabove, this petition is ailowed. The impugned letter dated 20-3-2007 (Annexure P12) directing recovery a sum of Rs.40!639/- on account of excess payment made to the petitioner, is hereby quashed. The petitioner is entitled to full pensionary benefits/gratuity amount without any deduction. lf'the amount has been recovered, the petitioner is entitled to the said amount with interest at the rate of 6% per annum. However, it is open to the respondents to take recourse to Rule 65 of the Chhattisgarh Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1976, if so advised, in accordance with law following basic principles of natural justice. No order asto costs. n VJI# l a Sd/— Satish K. Agnihotri ‘ Judge f‘x?‘