Eami Cmjg? m {1&HA'fwéagéwjaiggimw‘im ERJT ?E’I“.i’.('ION' {S} New 4468 QfZGC‘i’S .“.W_Mvm.mm*..m PETH‘IO‘NFR : Laxmi Prasad Painkam, Aged a’gw‘i 6‘2 wars, Retirad Paom 3/0 Shri Mangal Sai Pai a, Viikge — Charbhanta, Rm — Banai: ‘I‘ahsil Gharghoda, Dim. Raigarh (£16.) VERSU$ RESPONDENTS : 1. State Gavemmem 0f Chhattisgarh 'i‘hrsugh: Seme‘iary, Tr£ba§ WeEfare Deparimem, ,{).‘K.S. B'hawan; Raigmr {(3.£}”) 2. Ambit Cc-nmiissimm; Ti'ibai Waifam §.)epaztment Raigarh, Distt. — Raigarh ((2.113?) {)3'stt. ~ Raigarh (CG) 3. Pi‘iiacmai, gem. H.S.Sc}w0}, Gharghudm TITION UNDER ARTECLE 2% OF THE CQNSTETUTEON OF ENDEA SB: Eimfble Shri $atish k A‘snihim‘i J. FreSent: Shad Ajay Shrivastavaé Acivocéte for the petitioner. Sim. Smita Ghai, Peme} Lawyer far {ha Smte/mspmdems. gm; QRQER \x (Passed en 1W€i§§3§ KQTgusst, 2008} Wiih the cansem of the parties, the matter is taken up for heaxing imaiiy. The paliiioner was appointed as Pmm in the respondenm deyartmem. The peiitiener rem‘ad fmm servicias on affaining the agé of saperannuaiion on 3 1.03.2008. Amer his retirement. the peEIioner received a ietter dated 08.04.20€)$ (Annexure F/l} directing reeevery a sum 0f RS.69.?55;’- err amour): 0f exeess payment made to ihe petitioner. 2) Lea-med counsel appem’ixag for the petitioner submits that the petitianer was not given any opportunity to expiain the payment made t0 the petitioner. Thus, this etder is Viiiated for want ofcompiiance ofthe principles oi‘naturai justice and fair piay iii-action. Learned counsel hither submits that there is nu fauit on tire pan; of the petitioner and the amount is paid to him in eccordance with the pay scales, revised and fixed by the respondents from time to time. The responiients cannot recover the amennt. aiready paici to the yetitioner aiizer his retirement, that toe Without foliowing the principies 0fnatt1rai justice. n V WRIT PE M conciemned. Per contra, leamed counsel appeaa‘mg for the respoxadente/State submits ihat it is true that m Show cause notice was given i0 the petitioner. The communications made between the officers was eneoreed to ihe petitioner. lne petitioner was not calied upon to eubmia his expQanaiion for paymem of aileged excess payment and reeovery thereaiier 4) The respondent—aumorities have noi ibihweei the principles of naturai justice am} the impugned action has been taken without aiforémg an oppommiiy of hearing i0 the peti’tioner. The practiee of passing ordey involving eivii consequences without Show cause notice or without aifording an oppoxtunity, is 'I‘husn, this action ofc'ieducting Rs.69.‘755/— from retire! dues is bad on accoum of ihe fact that me petitioner was not afforded any opportunity ofhearing before the impugned aotion was iaken. aiso. ) The Hon’bie Supreme Court in the ease ofSakib Ram Vs. State afHmjiana ma‘ afkgrsl in para 5 haa held as undér: “5. Howevei; it i$ not on amcount ofany misrepresentatiow maria 1ay the appellzmi that the heiiefxt of higher pay smile was given to him but by wrong censtructéon ma<ia by tha Pn‘ncipal for which ihe appeilmii cammt be iléld to be at fault. Under the cimumStances, the amount gaid tili date may not be recovered from the appoHam.” The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case ofP. Tuisz‘ah’zs and otherg v. Gavemmem QfAP. are? asfkers 1, observed thai‘ the beneflt accrued earlier by way ofgmm ot‘higher pay or revised oay, cannot. be taken away as the same is Vioiative of Article 3.4 and 16 of the Constitution of incite being arbitrary, unreasonabk and expmpriatory. This Court; in the eaSe of Vidhadhar Tiwari VS. State Qf'CMzattisgarh oi othem" hes heid that for the excess payment, if any. made to the petitioner, he was not at fault and the amount received hy him might have been used by 1 1995 Supp (1) SCC 26 9 AJR 2003 Sc 43 3 2006 (1) MPHT -2. m5 (CG) I “ -3. jugting himseif according'iy treating the same as his Saiary. At thg's swge, {Eirecting recnvery oft'he alleged excess mount from me. pensionary benefits cfme petitioner will net be just and preper. 8) in View ofthe reasans mentioned hereinabove, tMs petition is ailowed. The impugned letter dateé “3&042008 {Amiexure WE) directing recovexy a su of Rs. 69,755/- on account of excess payment made to the peti‘o’oner, i3 herehy quashed. The petitioner is entiiied to fol}, pensionayy benefits/gratuity amunt Wiihout any deduction. If ihe amount has been yecovered, the etitioner is entitleti to the said amount with interest at the rate of 6% per aneum. However, it is open i0 the responéents to take recourse to Ruie 65 of the Chhattisgarh Civil $erviees (Pension) Rakes, 1975, if so acivisecL m accordzmce with law following basic principks of naiui'ai jam/ca No order «kn Sd/- Satish K. Agnihotri Judge asio costs. e ‘x ad m o p