HIGH COURT OF CHHATriSGARH AT BILA8PUR PETITIONER WRIT PETITION (S) No. 2802 of2007 Radheshvam Vishvkanna Ase about 62 vears. AssC. Teacher S/o Sfari Mahav-ir ViAvkarma Village - Raikoat, Post - Raikoat, Distt. - Bastar (C.G.) RESPONDENTS : 1. State Govt. of Chhattisearh Through Seeretary, Tribal Welfare Departniert & Educatiou Department D.K.S. Bhawan, Distt. - Raipur (C.G.) 2. Block Educatioii Offieer, Tokpal, Talisil & Distt. Jagdaipur (C.G.) 3. Joiiit Director (Treasury and Pension), Bastar Division- Jagdalpur Distt. - Bastar (C.G.) %?Krr pETmoN L^TDER ARTICLE 225 OF TIIE coNSTrrunoN QF INDIA SB: Hon'ble Shri Satish K. Agirihotri, J. Present: Sbri Ajay Shrivaistava, Advocate for the petitioner. S!m Satish Gupta, Govemment Advocate forthe State / respondents. QRALORDER (Passed oa 28 day of Fsbroary, 2008) 1. By this petition, the petitioner has prayed tbr a suitable writ or direction to quash the order dated 22.03.2006 (Annexure P/2) passed by the respondent No. 3 directine for recoverv of a sum of Rs. 33.849/- ftom the retiral dues ofthe petitioner, because this amount was wrongly paid to the petitioner owing to mcorrect fixation ofsalary. 2. The brief facts, in nutshell, are that the petitioner was woiking on the post of Assistant Teacher. The salarv ofthe petitionerwasrevisedtime to time and he was granted benefit of Kramonnati, pursuant to the order dated 17.07.2002 (Annexure P/.1). The petitioaer was retired from service on attaining the age bf superannuation. When the case of the petitioner was sent for pension to the respondent No. 2, the respondent No. 2 raised an objection vide order dated 13.02.2006 (Aimexure P/3) wifh regard to the fixation ofsalary ofthe petitioner to the effect that the petitioner was not entitled to the Kramonnati in the pay scale of Rs. 5500-175-9000/-. Accordinelv. the case ofths petiti(Mier was exaniined and owing to incorrect fiiation of pay, the aforesaid recovery was directed from the retiral dues ofthe petitioner. 3. Leamed counsel appearing fbr the petitioner submits that there is no fault on the part ofthe petitioner, as the petitioner was getting the salary, as fixed from time to time, by the respondeiits. The pespondeats cannot recover fhe amount, if any, from the retiral dues of the petitioner, without afifording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. The respondents have also not proved that the excess payment was made after giving any opportunity ofhearing to the petitioner. To substantiate his submissions, leamed counsel appearing tbr the petitioner cited a decision offhis Court in the case of Vldya Shankar Tfarari Vs. State ofM.P. (Now State ofChhattisgarh) and othei-s, reportedm 2006 (2) M.P.H.T.31(CG). 4. Leamed State counsel does not dispute the facts and well settled principle oflaw. 5. InthecaseofVidya8hat)karTiwari(Supra),afteraperiodoffburyears Srom the date of fixation of salary ofthe petitioner, he was directed to deposit the excess amount. This Court held that for the mistake of the respondenVemployer, the petitioner could not be penalized without foilowing principles of natural justice. Betbre asking ttie petitioner for making reiimd ofextra payment, no opportunity ofheairing was afforded to the petitioner. The petitioner had adjusted himselfto ths facts of&e case and had utilized the money what was legally and duly paid to him. No opportunity of hearing was given to the petitiorier before the impugned order was passed and as such the same is unreasonable, arbitrary and deserves to be quastod. 6. In view ofthe foregoing, fhis petition is allowed. The impugned order dated 22.03.2006 (Annexure P/2) is quMhed.so far it relates to recovery of Rs. 33.849/- Irom the retiral dues of the petitioner. No order asto costs. —— Amit Sd/- Satish K. Agnihotri Judge