^ IN THE HIOH COUKr OF CHHATnSGARH : BILASPUR Writ Pctition (Sl No. 5413 of2008 Petitioner Abdiil Sattar, aged about 64 yeara, S/o Sheri Abdul Kadar, R/o, Ratmak Palace, Bairon Bazar, Raipur (C.G.) Vcisus Respondcnts 1. State of Chhattisgarh, Throu^i - Sccretaiy, Forest Departmcntj D.K.S. Bhawan, Raipur (C.G.) Joint Director, Treasiuy aad Pcnsion, Raiptu- (C.G.) Dwisioilal Forest Officer, Mahasainund, District Mahasamund (C.G.) 2. 3. WRlTJ'ETmQN_UNDER ACT'ICLE 226 OFTHE CONSTmjTION OF INDIA (SB: Hon'ble Shri Satish K. AgtrihotriJ.) Shri Ashok Dubey, Advocate for fhe petitioner. Shri Yashwant Singh Ttaakur, Dcputy Advocate Qenerat with Ms Sunita Jain, Pancl Lawyer for fttc rcspondents. ..•*'y- O R D BR (Passcd on tfais 5ti> Day^oflMaich, 2009) With thc consent ofthe pteties fhe matterM licard fltiatty. The petitioner, while working as Porester in the Forest Department at Forest Diwision, Mataasamund rettred ftom. semce on 31.8.2004. Afber his retiremcnt by order dated 2.6.2006 (Annexure P/2) a sum of Rs. 28,849/- was directcd to bc recovered fiiom thc retiral dues ie. Rs. 12413/- on account of excess paysacst, Rs. 3988/- towards shortage of 7.25 coops of fire wood aad Rs. 12448/- tcwards sbortage of 778 pteces of bamboos. Learaed couusel appearing for the petitfoncr submits tbat thc issue iavolvcd hcrein, asto whcfher axiy amoiurt, which according to tfae State authorities is an cxcess payment, can be recovcred after retireinent of thc cmployee witbout afifording an opportuxiity of hcarfag is no loiigcr res integra, as thc samc has sa :./'° i!f::':- •!R% -^,o--S.ii.i»F 5. ff 6. bcen coiisidered smd decidcd by this Court in thc niatter of Vldhy^hu Ttiml V«.Btate of CUiattl^nrh fc otha*. Shri Yashwant Smgh Thakur, assisted by Ms Sunita Jain, lcaraed couasel appearmg for the respondents/State docs not dispute the at»ve submisslon inade by leamed counscl appearing for thc petitioDer. It appears that the respondent-authorities havc not followed fhe principlcs of natural justice aiid the impugned action has bcen taken wlthout affordixig an opportumty of heanng to tfae pctitioDer. Thc practice of passing ordcr involvuig civil (evU) consequeiices, without show causc notice or without aflfording an opportamty, is cotidcxBacd. Ttaus, this action of dcducting amount fiom retnal dzics is badOu the simpte ground that DD show cause notice was issucd and tbc petitioxierwas not affordcd aay oppprtuaity of hearing before the impugited action was The Hon'blc Supremc Court in thc matter of Salilb Riun V«? State of HwyuMi and othar*1 , in para 5 held, as iiadcr: *5. However, it is not on accoiint at asy nusreprescntation inadc by the appcUaat that thc benefit ofh^hcr pay scate was given to him but by wroi^; construction madc by fhe Principal for which the appellant caniwt be held to be at &ult. Under the circuinstances, tbe ainount paid till date may not be recovcre'd fiom thc appeUant." The Honlile Supreme Coiirt in the matter of P. Tuteld—and other* Va. Ctowernment of A.P. and othera2, observcd that the benefit accrued eariier by way of graat of higher pay or revised pay, cannot bc taken away as thc same is violative of Article 14 { 1995 Supp (1) SCC 20} {A.I.R. 2003 SC 43 } 8. Thakur •^- -3^ and 16 of'llM: Goi^ituUOn of Inriia ben^[ aibjtTaay, unreasanable aad'cxptUIU'fiitSiy. 'ni^g%^Bi( in the mattcr of VMt^dtanr TMWttt W^ Btate af tiUBBtttaguh t»atten3, Iield tliat for the exccss peymKat ifany, inade to tfae pettttoncr, hc was not at fault and tfac ainount recexved by hlni m4iht have been uscd by adjusting himself accordingty treatit^ the samc as his salaiy. At tlris stagc, directing rccovery of the alteged cxccss amount flToin the pcnsunaiy benefits ofthe pctitioner wiU aot bc just aad proper. In wicw of the foigoing, tte pctition is aUowcd. The impugned oricr dated 2.6.2006 (AnitextBte P/2) ia rcgard to xiecoveiy of Rs. 28,849/-, is beiet!y^'S^&aSu:&. Ifthe amount baasteaedy been recovcred, the piiBiSoncr is entitlcd to tbc said aniouut with latctest-SSsStiStsSc ofWb^er mnmfm. Howcver, it is open to the ag8itilcats/State to tatee recouisc to Rulc 65 of thc 'Chllattisgarh Civil SCTVMCS (Peasioa) Rutes, 1976, ifso adviscd, in accotdancc wltb taw, followiag the basic princqilcs of natural justfce. No oidcr asto costs. Sd/- SatishK.Agnihotri Judge y {2006 (1) M.P.H.T. 105 (C.G.)}