HIGH COURT OF CHHATTI5GARH AT BILASPUR WRIT PETWGN (5} Na“ $4$ {if 2399 PETITIONER : Swamjaya Prasad Satpathy, Aged 62 years, 8/a Late Shri Jaydav satpathy, Retmd Assistant Mining 011‘icar, R/o c-317, Shailendta Nagar, Raipur, District Raipur (Chnattisgarh) RESPONDENT$ :1. State of Chhattisgarh ThrouQI the secretary. Mine 8t Minerais Department, D.K.$. Bhawan, Mantlalaya, Raipur (0.6.) 2. Union 01 India, Through secremty, Pension 8: Fund. New Deihi. 3 The Director, Mine 8: Minerais Department, Sonakhan Bhavan, Raipur (c G ) VER$US SB‘ Hon’ble Shli Satlsh K Agnihotn J Present: shn Jitendra Math Nande Advocate tor the petitioner Shrl Pankaj Shrivastava, Panel Lamar for the State/ respc'iden‘s 1 and o ORAL ORDER (Passed an 27th day of March, 2009) With the consent of the parties, the matter is heard finally. By this petition, the petitioner impugns the order dated 09.10.2007 (Annexure P/1) and 22.12.2007 (Annexure P/2) passed by the respondent No. 2 whereby it has been directed to deduct a sum oi Rs. 33,660/- and Rs. 34,543/- respectively, as excess payment made to the petitioner, trom the gratuity amount. Shri Nande, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the issue asto whether recovery of excess payment can be made without following pdncipies‘ of natural justice is no longer res lmegra, the same‘has been settled by the Supreme Court in the matter of Sahib Ram V. State of Haryana and omers1, and further followed by this Court in the mtter of Vldyadhar Tlwari'v. The State of Chhattisgarh & Others2 and Vidya Shankar Tiwarl v. State ol' M.P. (Now State or Chhattisgarh) and others3. In the instant case, the impugned order has been passed without affording any opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. f. 1 1995 Supp (1) 50c 20 2 2006 (1) MPHT 105 (¢G) 3 2006 (2) MPHT 31 (c9) Shrl Shrivastava, Ieamed Panel Lawyer does not controvert the ailegation that no oppmtunity of hearing was aftorded before the impugned orders were passed. However, he relies on Rule 65 of the Chhattisgarh Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1976 (for short ‘the Rules, 1976’) for the purpose of recovery and adjustment of Govemment dues. The contention of the petitioner that even for exercising power under Rule 65 of the Rules, 1976, basic principles of natural justice and fair play in action are required to be followed. in the present mse, the State/authorities have not afforded any opportunity of hearing to the petitioner to put forward his case asto why the deduction from the gratuity amount being excess amount cannot be made. The contention of the iearned counsel for the petitioner merits acceptance. 6. This Court, in the case of Vldyadhar Tiwari (supra), has held that 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 salary. At this stage, directing recovery of the alleged excess amount from the pensionary benefits/gratuity amount of the petitioners wili not be just and proper. 7. ln view of the foregoing and as admitted by learned counsel appearing for the parties, this petition is allowed in the terms of the order passed in the case of- Vidyadnar Tiwari (supra) i.e. the impugned orders dated 09.10.2007 (Annexure P/1) and 22.12.2007 (Annexure P/2) regarding recovery of Rs. 33,660/- and Rs. 34,543/- respectively, from the retirai dues of the petitioner are hereby quashed. The petitioner is entitied to full pensionary benehts/gratuity amount without any deduction. If the said amount is aiready deducted from the gratuity, the same shall be payable to the petitioner with simple interest @ 6% per annum. However it is open to the respondents to take recourse to Rule 65 of the Rules 1976 if so advised in accordance with law after following basic principles of natural justice No order asto costs //T‘ SN Ags‘mw‘ ‘ \ \ \ \\ ‘\\ Sag'ysh ‘4. 3‘1dge \ ‘ \ \