fc\ ^t Petitloner COURT OF CHHATTISGARH: BiLASPUR Writ Petjtlon (Si No. 6703 of 20S8 S.S. Thakur, age 65 years, S/o. Shri Manrakhan Singh, R/o. Near New Bus Stand, Shivajl Ward, Mungeii, Distt. Silaspur (CG). Respondenis Versus 1) State of Chhattisgarh, through Secretary, Scheduled Casts, Scheduied Tribe and Backward Ciass Welfare Department D.K.S. Bhawan, Mantraiaya, Ralpur (CG). 2) Assistant Commissloner, Deveiopment, Ralgarh (CG). Tribai (VVrit Petition under Artlcle 226 of the Constitution of indla.) Slngle Bench : Hon'ble Mr. Satlsh K. Agnihotri, J. Present: Shri S.P. Ka!e, counsei for the petitioner. Shri Y.S. Thakur, Deputy Advocate General for State. ORAL ORDER (Passed on thjs 13* day of Februar^, 2009) With the consent of learned counsel appearing for the parties, the matter is heard fina!iv. 2) T'ne p^titioner retired from the post of Lecturer on attaining the age of superannuatlon. After his retirement, the petitloner recesved a ietter dated 3-6-2005 (Annexure P/1), directlng recover/ of a sum of Rs.22,913/- on account of excess payment made to the petitioner. 3) Learned counsei appearing for the petitloner submits that the petitioner was not given any opportunity to explain about the payment made to the petitloner. Thus, this order Is vitlated for want of compiiance of the principies of naturai Justice and falr play in-action. Learned counsel further submits that there is no fauit on the part of the petitloner and the amount 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 whlch count the excess payment, if any, was made. The respondents cannot ^SA^; \ recover the amount, already paid to the petitioner after his retirement, that too vi/ithout foilov^ng the principies of natural justice. 4) Learned counsel appearing tbr the respondents/State submits that it is true that no show cause notice was given to the petitioner. The petltioner was not calied upon to submit his explanation for payment of aijeged excess payment and recovery thereafter. 5) The respondent authorities have not foiiowed the principles of naturai justice and the impugned action has been taken without affording an opportunlty of nearing to the petitloner. The practice of passing order invoiving dvli consequences, without show cause notice or wlthout affording an opportunity, Is condemned. Thus, this action of deducting Rs»22,913/- from retiral dues is bad on account o? the fact that the petltloner was not afforded any opportunity of hearing before the impugned actlon was taken, also. 6) The Hon'bie Supreme Court in the case of Sahib Ram Vs. State of Haryana and others in para 5 has heid as under: 5'5. However, It is not on account of any mjsrepresentation made by the appeilant that the benefit of higher pay scaie was given to him but by wrong constructlon made by the PrincipaJ for which the appellant cannot be held'-to be at fauit. Under the circumstances, the amount paid till date may not be recovered from the appellant.'' 7) The Hon'ble Supreme Court In the case of P. TyisJdas and others v. Govemment of A.P. and others2, observed that the beneflt accrued earlier by way of grant of hlgher pay or revlsed pay, cannot be taken away as the same is ylolative of Articte 14 and 1S of the Constltution of india being arbitrary, unreasonabie and expropriator^. 8) This Court, in the case of Vldyadhar Tiwari Vs. State of Chhattlsgarh & others3 has held that for the excess payment, if any, made to the petitioner, he was not at fault and the amount received by him might have been used by adjusting himself accordingly treating the same as his saiary. At this stage, directing recovery of the alieged excess amount from the penslonary benefits ofthe petitioner wiii not bejust and proper. 11995Supp(1)SCC20 2 A!R 200^3043 3 200S (1)MPMT105 (CG) 9) in viev/ of the foregoing, the petitioner is entitied to the same relief in accordance with ths decision of this court dated 10-9-2008 in R.S. Verma Vs. State Govefaaiment of Chhattisgarh and others O^Vrlt Petitlon (S) No. 5016 of 2008) only in the event an ppportunity of hearlng was not afforded to the petitloner. In other words, ifthe opportunity of hearing was granted, then the petltloner is not entitled to the same relief, in terms ofthe decision ofthls Court in R.S. Verma (supra). 10) Accordingly, this petition is disposed of. Gowri Sd/- Satish K. Agnihotri Judge t