T^ A/=^ HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR Writ Petition (S) No. 1489 of2009 Puran Lal Dewangan, S/o Bharat Lal Dewangan, aged about 63 yeai-s, R/'o Near Gaura Choura Jalanipur Para Dhamtai-i, District Dhatntari (CG). VERSUS 1. State of Chhattisgarh through the Seci-etary, Techiucal Education and Jan Shakti Niyojan Departoient, DKS Bhavvan, Raipur (CG). 2. The Director Technical Education Department, Directorate ChUattisgarh, Raipur, District Raipur (CG). 3. The PrincipaL Govenmient Polytechnic College, Dhamtari, District Dhamtan (CG). 4. The Joint Director, Treasury Accounts and Pension, Raipur, Distriet Dhamtari (CG). 5. The Treasury Officer, District Treasury Ofiice, Dhamtari, District Dhaintari (CG). (WRIT PETITION LWDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTFrUTION OF INDIA) (SB: Hon'Ue Mr. Sattsh K. Agnihotri, J.) Present^ : ShriP.P. Saliu, Advocate forthe petitioner. Shri Arun Sao, Go'vt. Advocate for the State. ORALORDER (Psissed on 20 day ofMareh, 2009) With the consent ofthe parties, the matter is taken up for hearing, fmally. By tfus petition, the petitioner impugns the order dated 13.02.2009 ,(Annexure P/7), passed by the respondeiit No. 3, wfaereby it has been- directedto recover excess payment madeto tlie petitioner. ••A^ - ...• The brieffacts, in nutshell, are that tlie petitioner while working as SkiIIed Assistant, retired on attaining the age of superaanuation 011 31.10.2007 (Armexure P/5). The petitioner received the impugned recoveiy order dated 1S.02;2009 (Aimexure P/7), issued by the respondent No. 3, whereby, tlie ^. 11 '^•; ^; District Treasuty Oflicer was directed to recover excess payment without aifording an opportunity ofhearing to the petitioner. Leai-ned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the issue asto whether recovety of excess payment can be made without fbllowing principles ofnaturaljustice is no longer res mtegra, tlie same Kas been settled by the Supreme Court in the matter ot Sahib Ram Vs. State ofHwyana and others , and fiirther fol'owed by this Court in the matter of Vidyadhar Tiwari J/rs. The Stcitc ofChHcdtis^ciTji & Gthers^. Leamed counsel for the respondents/State relies on Rule 65 of the Chfaattisgarh Civil Serv'ices (Pension) Rules, 1976 (for short 'the Rules, 1976') fbr the purpose ofrecovery and adjustment ofGovei-nment dues. Rule 65 ofthe Rules, 1976 reads as under: "Rule 65 - Recovery and adjustment ofGovernaient dues:- (1) It shall be the duty ofevery retiring Goveniment servaiit to clear all Govemment dues before the date ofhis retirement. (2) VVhere a retiring Govemment servant does not clear the Govemmeat dues and such dues are ascertaiiiable:- (a) an equivalent cash deposit may be taken from lum; or (b) out ofthe gratuity payable to hun, his noaiinee or legal heir, an amount equal to that recoverable on account of ascertaiiiable Govemmeat dues shall be deducted. Explanation-1. The expression 'ascertamable Govemment dues' indudes balance of house building or coaveyance advance, arrears of rent and otlier charges pertaining to occupation of Govemment AccoiTunodation, over-payment of pay aiid allowances and arrears of income tax deductible at source under the Income Tax Act. 1961" . The contention ofttie petitioner that even for exercising power under.Rule 65 orfhe Rules, 1976, basic prineiples ofnatural justice and fair play in action are required to be followed. In the preseHt case, the State/authorities have ngt aiforded any opportunity of liearing to the p.etitioner to put forward his case asto why tlie deduction from the gratuity amount being excess amount carmot ' 1995Supp(l)SCC20 22006(l)^Ip5T105fCG) a L ii -^•:; ..i.-i^ a? 8. be made. TTie contention of Ihe leamed counsel for the petitioner merits acceptaace. This Court, in the case of Vidyadiiar Tiwari (supra), has held that the excess paymenf, if any, made to the petitioner, he was not at fault and fhe ainount received by hmi might have beea used by adjusting himself accordmgly, ti-eatmg fhe same as lus salary. At this stage, dffecting recovery offlie alleged excess aaiount Irom the pensionary benefits/gratuity amount ofthe petitioner will not bejust and proper. In view ofthe foregoing, this petition is allowed m tlie tenns offlie order passed m the case of Vidyadhar Tiwari (supra.) i.e. fhe impugned letter dated 13.02.2009 (Aimexure P/7) regarding recovery ofamount from the gratuity aad other dues ofthe petitioner on account of excess payment, is hereby quashed. The petitioner is entitled to full pensionary benefits/gratuity amount without any deduction. However, it is open to tlie respondeats to take recourseto Rule 65 ofthe Kules, 1976, ifso advised, inaccordarice withlaw, foliowing basic principles ofnaturaljustice. No order asto costs. Consequently, pending applications,ifany, stand disposed of. Sd/- \ SatishK. Agnihotri : Judge ; SaHu K