AF^ HIGH COURT OP CHHATTISGARH : BILASPUR Petitioner Versus Respondents 1. 2. 3. Writ Petition No. 1846 of 2006 Markandey Prasad Patel, S/o Late Shri Kanhaiya Lal Patel, aged about 61 years, R/o Vinoba Nagar (Boirdadar), Raigarh, Tahsil & Dista-ict Raigarh (C.G.) ^ State of Chhattisgarh, Through Secretary, Agriculture Department, D.K.S. Bhawan, Raipur (C.G.) The Joint Director, Accounts Treasury and Pension, Bilaspur (C.G.) The Deputy Director, Agriculture, Raigarh (C.G.) WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226/227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA (SB: Hon'ble Shri Satish K. Agnihotri J.) Shri S. K. Tiwari, Advocate for the petitioner. Ms Smita Ghai, Panel Lawyer for the State/respondents. ORDER (Passed on this 4th Efey of May, 2009) 1. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner, while working as Gramin Krishi Vistar Adhikari, retired froin service on attaining the age of superannuation on 31.10.2005. After his redrement, by order dated 30.1.2006 (Annexure P/2) a sum of Rs. 27,4 II/- has been directed to be recovered from the retiral dues of the petitioner on account of excess payment made to the petitioner. 2. Leamed counsel appearing for the petitiorier submits that the petitioner was not given any opportunity to explain about the payment made to the petitioner. Thus, this order is vidated for want of compliance of the principles of natural justice and fair play in action. Learned counsel further submits thqit there is no fault on the part of the petitioner and the araount is paid to him in accordance with the pay scales, revised and fixed by the respondents from 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 r^' '.3" -2-. ^ petitioner after his retirement, that too without following the principles of natural justice. Learned counsel appearing for the respondents/State submits that since the pedtioner has given an undertaking to make payment of excess amount, it was not necessary to issue further notice and afford an opportunity of hearing. The issue asto whether recovery of excess payment can be made without following principles of natural justice is no longer res integra. The same has been settled by the Supreme Court in Shyani Babu Verina and others Vs. Union of India and others1, Sahib Ram Vs. State of Haryana and others2, P. Tulsidas andothers Vs. Government ofA.P. and others3 and further followed by this Court in Vidhyadhar Tiwari Vs. State of Chhattisgarh SB others4, Prem Shankar Dubey Vs. State of Chhattisgarh & others5 and several other decisions. The HonTsle Supreme Court in Shyain Babu Vernia (supra), has held that the employees who have received higher scale due to no fault of theirs, it shall only be just and proper not to recover any excess amount already paid to thein. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Sahib Ram (supra), in para 5 held, as under: "5. However, it is not on account of any misrepresentation made by the appellant that fhe benefit of higher pay scale was given to him but by wrong construcdon made by the Principal for which the appellant cannot be held to be at fault. Under the circumstances, the amount paid till date may not be recovered froni the appellant. The HonTsle Supreme Court in P. Tulsidas (supra), 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 arbitraiy, unreasonable and expropriatory. i{( 1994) 2 SCC 521} 2 { 1995 Supp (l) SCC 20} 3{A.I.R.2003SC43} 4 { 2006 (1) M.P.H.T. 105 (C.G.)} 5W.P.(S)No. 1559/2008dt. 1.5.2009 •"vk^- i: T-.? 8. 9. 10. -3 This Court in the matter ofVidhyadhar Tiwari (supra), held that for the excess payment if any, made to the petitioner, when he was not at fault and the amount received by him might have been used by adjusting himself accordingly treating the same as his salary. At this stage, directing recovery of the alleged excess amount from the pensionary benefits of the petitioner will not be just and proper. In the instant case, the impugned order has been passed without affording any opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. In view of the forgoing, the petition is allowed. The impugned order dated 31.1.2006 (Annexure P/2) in regard to the recovery of Rs. 27,411/-, on account of excess payment made to the petitioner, is hereby quashed. The petitioner is entifled to full pensionary benefits/retiral benefits without any deduction. If the amount has already 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/State to take recourse to Rule 65 of the Chhattisgarh Civil Services (pension) Rules, 1976, if so advised, in accordance with law, following the basic principles ofnaturaljusdce. No order asto costs. Thalair Sd/- Satish K. Agnihotri Judge ~t'