‘p;—-q smeLE 38w x. c?f% ® IN THE HON’BLE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WRIT PETITION (S) No. WgzOg [2008 PETITIONER / Har Prasad Shukla S/o Late Nohar Prasad Shukla, aged about 63 years, Retired Tsacher, Government Higher Secondary School, Nagardv Block Bhilaigarh District Raipur (C.G.) VERSUS (/1. State of Chhattisgarh Through Department of Education, D.K.S. Bhawan, Raipulr (C.G.) RESPONDENTS: 2. Dis’mct Education Officer, District Raipur (C.G.) The Joint Director, Accounts Treasury and Pension, Raipur (C.G.) ,J 4. District Accounts Officer, District Janjgir—champa (cc 4, WRIT UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA 1 . Particulars of the‘Petitioner: As per cause title. 2. Particulars of the Respondents: As per cause title. kw 3 AL Cx 5 HIGHNM COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WRIT .PETITION (S) N0. 7208 Qf’ZOLJE ?ETETION};K : .aai‘ Pmsaci SEwkia. VERSUS Smie of Cmattisgaxh & {)thers. RESPONDENTS m Xx WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226M OF THE CONSTE’I‘UTISR M OF RD; A Presem: Ashwani Shukla, Am acme {ox the pefitioner. ‘D u. M N Hon’Me Skri §atish K Aimiham J. Smt. Smita Ghai, Panel Lawyer for the State. w) ’ (2‘) ‘SREER GRAE (Passed on 08‘ day ofOctober, 2009) Heard Eeame& counsel for the parties. The peihionar impugns the order dated 30m August, 20% (Almexare Pl'l) 011 the gaund that an amount of Rs. 4,350/- has been dix‘ecnad to be ‘eceyered from the retiral dues ofthe petitioaer. Shri $hukla. leamed counsel aepearing for the petiéioner submits {hat the §ssue asto whether reeovexy of excess payment can be made without feliowiiig prinei‘pEes of namm} justice is no longer res z‘megra, the same has been sewed by the Supi'eme CemT in the matter of Sahib Ram v. Siaie ofHaiycma cmci others], and further foiiowed by this Couit in the matter 0f Wdyaaikar Tiwarz’ v. Wye State qfChhaz‘tisgar/y 6’; Others: and Dwim Skaitkar Tiwari' v. State afMfP. (New Stare ofChkazmgarh) and atkarsj’. In the meant eaSe, the itiigugmd erder has been passed without affm‘timg any Oppeitunity ofhearjng to the petitioner. 3. Slut. Ghai. Ieamed Panel Law3'er does not eeatrovett the aliegation that tie oppoxtunity 0f hearing was afforded before the impugneci oz‘dei‘s 99 Supp ( 1) SCC 20 MDHT ms (CG) NEH? 3: {CG} V\J I I were passed. H0wever, she relies on Rule 65 of the Cmmttiagam Civil Sswiws (Pansion) Ruks, 1976 (for short ‘ihe Rules, 1976’} for the purpose of recovery and adjusiment of Government dues. The contemioxa of the petitioner that ever; for exercising power under Ruie 65 of the Ruies, 1976, basic principlee of natural justice am} fair p1ay in action are required t0 ‘oe foilowed. In the present case: the Staie/authorities have not aEorded any oppommiiy of hearing to the pei‘itioner to pm forward his case asto why the deduction from the gratuity amoum being excess amount caimot be made. The contemion of the Eeamed Counsel for the petiiioner merits acceptance. This Comm in the ease of WC§W€JI7¢1T Tiwari (supra): has hekt that the excess payment, if any, made to the petitioner, he was not at fault and the amount reeeiveci by him might have been used by adjusting himself accordingly treating the same as his salmy. At this stage, directing recovery of the aileged excess amount from the pensionary benefits/gratuity amount ofthe petitioner will not be just and propet. 6. in View of the foregoing and for the reasons stated hereinebove, this pe itiott is altowed, The impugteé orders dated 30m August, 2008 (Annexure P/l) regarding recovety of Rs. 4,350/- from the retiral dues of the petitioner are hereby quashed. The petitioner is entitied to full pensionary benefits/grateity ainount Without any deduction. If the said amount is already deducted, the same shall be payabte to the petitioner with simgile interest @ 6% per annum. No order asto costs. 4:. (J) V / Sd/e K Satish K. Agnihotrii L Judge A3rljt i