M WWW PETITIONER ——-- / ESPONDENTS —»-- R’/—» WRIT PETITIO CONST1TUT10N OF 1 ORDER OR ORD FACTS AND @@ SGARH 1g $ingle Bermh (W’Erzia E HIGH COURT OF CHHATTI ' B1LASPUR (C.G.) F 200g WRIT PE'nTIoN [s1 N0. -$3L‘ o S / 0 Late Shri //K/hushiram Sarathi Sahebram Sarathi, R/o Village~ Jatari, Raigarh (C.G.). Aged about 66 Tahsil— years, Pussore, District— VERSUS 1]/State of Chhattisgarh, \AgibXX’ ‘ Department, D.K.S. / Through: Secretary, 4 Tribal Welfare ’ Bhawan, Mantralaya, Raipur (C.G.) int Director, Accounts d Pension, 'Bilaspur gL/{The Jo Treasury an (C.G.) 3] The Assistant / Tribal Welfare, Raig District— Raigarh (C.G.). Commissioner, arh, Tahsil 8r: N UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE NDIA FOR ISSUENCE OF WRIT OR WRITS, OR DIRECTIONS UNDER THE ERS, DIRECTION CIRCUMDTANCES OF THE CASE. BEFORE THE HON’BL ‘1” ' ,1. HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH : BILASPUR WRIT PETITIGN [5) NO.5234I2009 Present: - Shri S. K. Tiwari, counsel for the petitioner. Shri P. K. Bhaduri, Panel Lawyer for the State. ORAL ORDER (Passed on this 14'“ day of September, 2009) Heard counsel for the parties. (Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of india) Single Bench: Hon’ble Shri Sati$h K. Agnihotri, J. 1. By this petition. the petitioner impugns the order dated 11-10-2006 (Annexure P/1) passed by the respondent No.2, whereby a sum of Rs.43,076/— has been deducted holding it to be excess payment made to the petitioner, from his retiral dues. 2. Shri Tiwari, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the issue asto whether recovery of excess payment can be made without following principles of natural justice is no longer res integra, the same has been settled by the Supreme Court in the matter of Sahib Ram v. State of Haryana and others’, and further foliowed by this Court in the matter of Vidyadhar Tiwani v. The State of Chhattisgarh & Othersz and Vidya Shankar Tiwari v. State of MP. (Now Sate of Chhattisgam) and ofhers3. ln'the instant case, the impugned order has been passed without affording any opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. 3. Shri Bhaduri Panel Lawyer submits that though the impugned order may have been passed Without affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner but the petitioner ought to have taken the objection immediately after his retirement whereas the petitioner has filed the instant petition after lapse of about three years < from the date of passing of the impugned order.’ 1 1995 Supp (1) SCC 20 2 2006 (1)MPHT 105 (CG) ‘3 2006 (2) MPHr 31 (CG) PETITIONER Khushiram Sarathi Versus RESPONDENTS State of Chhattisgarh & others @ ,1. 4. Be that as it may. it is well settled law that the writ jurisdiction is not governed by any limitation. however, lapse has to be eeen when a third party interest has been created. In the present case. no such situation has arisen. as the State had already deducted the amount, which may be due to the petitioner, without affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. Thus, the objection raised by the learned counsel for the State is rejected. 5.. The Contention of the petitionerthat even for exercising power under Rule 65 of the Rules, 1976, basic principles of natural justice and fair play in action are required to be followed. ln the present case, the State/authorities have not afforded any opportunity of hearing to the petitioner to put forward his case asto why the deduction from the gratuity amount being excess amount cannot be made. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner merits acceptance. 4w 6. This Court, in the case of Vidyadhar Tiwan' (supra), has held that the excess payment, if any, made to the petitioner, he was not at fault and the amount received by him might have been used by adjusting himself accordingly treating the same as his salary. At this stage, directing recovery of the alleged excess amount from the pensionary benefits/gratuity amount of the petitioner will not be just and proper. 7. ln view of the foregoing and as admitted by learned counsel appearing for the parties, this petition is allowed in the terms of the order passed in the case of Vidyadhar Tiwan' (supra) i.e. the impugned order dated 11-10—2006 (Annexure' PM) deducting a sum of Rs.43.076/- from the retirai dues of the petitioner is hereby quashed. The petitioner is entitled to full pensionary benefits/gratuity amount without any deduction. lf the said amount is already deducted from the gratuity, the same shall be payabie to the petitioner with simple interest @ 6% per annum from the date it became due till the payment is made. However, it is open to the respondents to take recourse to Rule 65 of the Rules. 1976, if so advised, in accordance with iaw. after following basic principles of natural justice. No order asto costs. Sd/- ' _ -;' V‘V i Satish K. Agnihotrii‘ ‘ Gown / l y it Judge