HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH: BILASPUR Writ Petition (S) No 51 36 of 2008 Ganesh Prasad Paikra S/c Shn RS Kawar aged about 62 years R/o Vmage Turiura Post Narayanpur Thana LaiiL‘mga District Raigarh (CG) Versus i State of Chhamsgarh through the secretary, Tuba: Weifare Depament DKS Bhawan Dist: Raipur (CG) Joint Pension, Director Biiespei, Treasury Dist’rict Account Biiaspur & (CG). District Education omcer, Raigarh, Distt. Raigam (CG). ccountant Genevai, office of the Accountant General, Pandari, Raipur (CG). Petitioner i Respbndents {Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of indie.) Single Bench ' Hon’bie Mr Satish K Agnihoti J ’ Present: Shn Vivek Verma counsel forthe petitioner Ms. Summ Jain, Panei Lawyer for the State. ORAL ORDER (Passed on 15‘“ nay of September, 2908) With the consent of learned counsei appearing for the parties, the l matter is heard finally. 2) The petitioner was initially appornted as an Assrstant Teacher on . 12 1 1972 in the respondents department The petitioner retired from serwces on attaining the age of superannuation on 30-6—2008. The petmoner 3 received a fetter dated 20-6-2008 (Annexure PI1), directing recovery of a sum of Rs.5,1 12l— on account of excess payment made to the petitioner. 3) Learned counset appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was not given any opportunity to explain about the payment made E I to'the petitioner. Thus, this order is vitiated for want of compliance of the principles of natural justice and fair play in-action. Learned counsel further submits that there. is no fauit on the part of the petitioner and the amount is paid to him in accordance with the pay scales, revised and fixed by the A respondents from time to time. No reason h been assigned asto on which count the excess payment if any, was m de The respondents cannot recover the amount ah‘eady paid to the petmo er after hrs retirement, that too Without followmg the princlpies of naturai justl 4) r Learned counsel appearing for the res 1ondenisl5£ate submiia that it is true that no show cause notice was given t& the petitioner. The petitioner was not sailed upon to submit his explanation} for payment of aileged exoess payment and recovery thereafter. 1 I 5) ’ The respondent authorities have not foiiowed the principies of haturai‘ é iustice and the impugned action has beeh taken without affording an: opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. The practice of passing order involving civil consequences without show cause notice or without affording an opportunity, Is condemned Thus this action of deducting Rs 5 1121- from retlral dues rs bad on account of the fact that rthe petitioner was not afforded any opportunity of hearing before the impugned action was taken, aiso. 6) ( The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Sahib Ram Vs. State oft Haryana and others‘ in para 5 has héid as under: i “5. However, it is not on account of any i misrepresentation made by the appellant that the benefit of higher pay so‘aie was given to him but by wrong construction made by die Principat a - 3 for which the appeiiant cannot be heid to be at fault. Under the circumstances, the amount paid tiii date may not be recovered from the appeiiant." l 7) The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of P. Tulsiclas and others v Government of A.P. and others2, observed that the benefit accrued eartier by way of grant of higher pay or revised pay cannot be taken awav as the same is Violative of Article 14 and 16 of the Constitution of india 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 mighti have been used by adjusting himself accordingly treating the same as his: saiary. At this stage, directing recovery of the alleged excess amount fromi \ the pensionary benefits of the petitioner will not be just and proper. 1 1995 Supp (1) SCC 20 AIR 2003 SC 43 x 3 2006 (1) MPHT 105 (co) r—a ~ l \ in View of te reasons mentioned heretnabove this petition Is aliowed The Impugned Ietter dated 20-6-2008 (Annexure Pl1) directing recovery a sum of Rs 5 112l- on account of excess payment made to the petmoner is hereby quashed The petitioner ts enhtled to fun penswnaw benefitslgratuity amount Without any deduction if the amount has been recovered the petltponer Is entitled to the said amount wrth Interest at the rate of 6% per annum However rt Is open to the respondents to take any step, if so ladwsed In accordance wrth [aw followmg basrc pnnmptes of naturat justice > Gowri u . Sdl- . K [ttshK Agmhmn Judge 9) h V a