@ RS. Verma, aged 62 years, n of Late Shri Sikhai Ram Verma. Retired Food inspector, Office of Niyantrak Khadhya & Aushadhi Prasha3han. Chhattisgarh, Raipur, Ditrict Raipuf (CG). Versus 1) State Government of Cattisgarh, thtough the Secretary, Lek Swastha 8: Pariwar Kaiyan Department, D.K.S‘. Bhawan, Raipur (CG). 2) Niyantrak Khadya & Aushadhi Prashashan, aiibad Raipur (CG). Ki, 3) Joint Ditector, Treasury“, Aecounts & Pension. Ghadi Chowk, aipur. R (Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of idie.) n Sinle Bench : Hon’bie Mr. Satish K. Aihotri, J. g gn Present: $hri Ajay Shrivastava, counsei for the petitioner. Shri P.K. Bhaduri, anel Lawyer for state. ORAL ORDER (Passed on 10‘“ day of September, 2008) With the consent of iearned counsei appearing for the parties, the matter is heard tinaiiy. 2) The petitioner retired from the post of Food inspector on attaining the age of superannuation. After his retirement, the petitioner received a ietter dated 31 —1 -2007 (Anneure I1), directing recover of a sum of s.44,883!‘ ontaccount of excess ayment made to the ptitioner. 3) Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner Was not given any opportunity to explain about the payment made to the petitioner. Thus, this order is vitiated for want of compliance of me principles of naturai justice and fair play in-acdon. Learned counsel further submits that there is no fault on the part of the petitioner and the amount is paid to him in accordance with the pay scales, revised and fixed by the respondents from time to time. No reason has been assigned asto on which r\\ count the excess payment, if any, was made. The respondents cannot x oi.“ vw/.,. HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH: BILASPUR Writ Petition (S) No. 5016 of 2008 Petitioner so s hh Respondents P x P y R p e @ recover the amount, already paid to the petitioner after his retirement, that too without following the principieS of natural justice. 4) Learned counsel appearing for the respondentslsmte submits that it is true that no show cause notice was given to the petitioner. The petitioner was not called upon to submit his explanation for payment of alleged excess payment and recovery thereafter. 5) The respondent authorities have not followed the principles of naturai justice and the impugned action has been taken without affording ‘an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. The practice of passing order involving civil consequences, without show cuse notice or without affording an opportunity, is condemned. Thus, this action of deducting Rs.44,883/- from retiral dues is bad on account of the fact that the petitioner was not afforded any opportunity of hearing before the impugned acdon 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: "5. However. it is not on account of any misrepresentation made by the appeilant that the benent of higher pay scaie was given to him but by wrong construction made by the Principal for which the appeilant cannot be held to be at fault. Under the circumtances, the amount paid till date may not be recovered from the appeiian ." 7) The Hon’bie Supreme Court in the case of P. Tuisidas and others v. Government of A.P. and othersi, observed that the benefit accrued earlier by way of grant of higher pay or revised pay, cannot be taken away es the same is vioiative of Article 14 and 16' of the Constitution of lndia being arbitrary, unreasonable and expropriatory. 8) This Court, in the case of Vidyadhar Tiwari Vs. State of Chhattisgarh & othersa has held that for the excess payment, d any, made to the petitioner, he was not at fault and tlw amount received by him migit have been used by adjusting himself. accordingly treating the same as his salary. At this sage, directing recovery of the alleged excess amount from the pensionary benefits of the petitioner wiil not be just and proper. i 1995 supp (1) soc 20 2 AIR 2003 so 43 3 2006 (1) MPHT 105 (cs) 9) In view of the reasons mentioned hereinabove, this petition is aliowed. The impugned latte! dated 31—1-2007 (Annexure PM) directing rxovery a sum of Rs.44,883l- on account of excess payment made to the petitioner, is hereby quashed. The petitioner is entitied to full pensionaw benefits/gratuity 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 Ruie 65 of the Chhattisgarh Civii Services (Pension) Ruios, 1976, if so advised, in accordance with iaw foiiowing basic principies of naturai jusdce. No’order asto costs. . Sd/- ;Satish K. Agnihotri ‘ Judge ,._ per ‘_ \