HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH: BILASPUR ‘ Writ Petition (S) No. 5054 of 2008 Petitioner C. Ramkrishna Rae, S/o Late ShFi C.V.G. Swami, aged about 62 yea!s_, Retired Lecturer, Government Higher secondaw School, Bilaspur, R/o House No.16/23, lndira Coiony. Tarbahar, Biiaspur, District Bilaspur (CG). yersus Respondents 1) State of Chhattisgarh, through the Secretary, Education Depanment, D.K.S. Bhawan, Raipur (CG). 2) Joint Director, Treasmy, Account & Pension, Biiaspur Division, District Biiaspur (CG). 3) District Education Officer, Biiaspur, District Biia$pur {CG}. With the consent of teamed counsei appearing for the parties! the matter is heard finally. 2) i The petitioner was initiaiiy appointed on 21 -3—1 967 in the respondents department. The petitioner retired from services on attaining we age of superannuation on 31 -3‘2008. After his retirement, the petitioner received a letter dated 1-4-2008 (Annexure P/2), directing recovery of a sum of Rs.27,533l— on account of excess payment made to the petitioner. 3) Learned counsei appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was not given any opportunity to oxpiain about the payment made to the petitioner. Thus, this ordet is vitiated for want of compiiance of the principies of naturai justice and fair piay inaction. Learned couneei further submits that there is no fauit on the part of the petitioner and the amount is r / n / 4) Disttict Secondary School, Biiaspur, Secondary (CG). Biiaepur (CG). Single Bench : Hon‘ble Mr. Satjsh K. Agnihotri, J. Present : shri Kunai Das, counsei for the petitioner. Shri Arun See, Govt. Advocate for the State. ORAL ORDER (Passed on 11‘“ day of September, 2008) paid to him in accordance with the pay scaies, revised and med by the respondents fvom 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 redrement, that too without foliowing the principles of natural justice. 4) Learned counsei appearing for the respondents/State submits that it is true tat no show cause notice was given to the petitioner. The petitioner was not called upon to submit his explanation for payment of alieged excess payment and recovery thereafter. 5) The respondent authorities have not foliowed the principles of natural ustice and the impugned action has been taken without affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. The practice of passing order involving civii consequences, without show cause notice or without affording an opportunity, is condemned. Thus, this action of deducting Rs.27,533/‘ 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, also. 6) The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Sahib Ram Vs. State of Haryana and others" in para 5 has held as under; 7) The Hon’bie Supreme Court in the case of P. Tulsidas and others v. Government of A,P. and othersz, observed that the benefit accrued eariier by ay of rant of higher pay or revised pay, cannot be taken away as the same is violative of Article 14 and 16 of the Constftution of indie being arbitrary, unreasonable and expropriatory. 8) This Court, in the case of Vidyadhar Tiwari Vs. State of Chhattisgarh & otherss has heid 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 accordingty treating the same as his 1 1995 Supp (1‘) scc 2o 2 IR 2003 so 43 3 2006 (1) MPHT 105 (cei \ "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 madeby the Principal for which the appeliant cannot be heid to be at fauit. Under the circumstances, the amount paid til! date may not be :eccvered from the appeilant.” h i in . w g A \, saiary. At this stage, directing recovery of téue aHeged excess amount from the pensionary benefits of the petitioner wiil not be iust and proper. 9) In view of the reasons mentioned hereinabove, this petition is allowed. The impugned letter oated 1-4-2008 (Annexure Pl2) directing recovery a sum of Rs.27,533l- on account of excess payment made to the petitioner, is hereby quashed. The petitioner is entitled to full pensionary benefitsfgratuity amount without any deduction. if 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. ' x. Sd/— i :Satish K. Agnihotn ; Judge