HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH’ BILASPUR rit Petition §S) N0.1 651 of 2009 Bnjra; Smgh Sfo Late Kalika Smgh ged about 63 years, Retired Inspector of Ponce Department Rio Jayantl Nagar Street No3 Near Karmnhari Nagar, SIkOIa, Durg, Tehsn & Distnot Durg (CG) Versus State of Chhattlsgarh through th Secretary, Department of Home Affairs. DKS Bhwan‘ Mantralaya, Ralpu (CG) ) once Director General f Ponce, Headquarter Rarpur, CG 3) Superintendent of‘ Pohoe, District Raigarh (coy , D e“ Treasury, Officer _ istriut: Trasury Durg (CG Respondents 4) (Writ Petition under Artiole '226 ofthe Constitution of lndia:). Single Bench Hon’ble Mr Satish K Agnthotn. J Mr Jitendra Gupta counsel for the petitioner r M P S Bhatla, Dy Govt Advocate for the ate M $t Present :- ORAL ORDER L (Passed on 30‘“ day of March 2m) With the consent of teamed counsel appearing tor the parties, the matter is heard finally t J; _ 8: e I ‘ e p e - 2) The petitiorér while working as inspector in respondents departmen retired from serVices after attaining the age of superannuation on I 31 10~2006 Thereafter, the petitioner received a letter dated 12-12-200 (Annexure Pl1), whereby an amount of Rs 43 51 3I- was deducted from th retire! dues on account of excess payment made to the petitioner ‘ 3) Learned counsel appearing for the petttioner submits that th ehttoner was not given any opportunity to explain about the payment mad to the petitioner Thus, this order Is vitiated for want of compliance of the '1 pnnciples of natural justice and fair play in-action Learned counsel further r submits that there is no fault on the pait of the petitioner and the amount is , W a ‘ , r [Petitioner e a r o 2 P \ ). J. paid t6 him in accordance wr‘m the phy scales, revised and fixed by tha fespondenis from time ta time No reason has Been assigned asto on which count the excess payment if any, was made The respondens cannot recover the amount aiready paid to the petitioner after his retirement thettoo without foliowrng the principles of natural Jushce 4) Learned counsel appearing for the respondentslState submm 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 thereanar ' ' ‘ 5) The respondent authonties have not followed the principles m natural ' justice and the impugned action has been hken Without affording an“ opportunity of hearing to the petitioner The practice of passing order involving oiVil consequences Without show cause notice or Without affording o an opportunitv is condemned Thus this action of deductmg Rs 4351 3/- from retiral dues is bad on account of the fact that the petitioner was not afforded any opportunrty of hearing before the impugned action was taken also 6) The Hon’ble Supreme Court In the case of Sahib Ram Vs Shte of Haryana and others in para 5 has held as under "5 However, it is not on account of an misrepresentation made by the appetlant that the benefit of higher pay scale was given to him but by wrong construction made by the Pnnmpal for which the appellant cannot be held to be at fauit Under the Circumshnces the amount pai titl date may not be recovered from the appellan 7) V The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of P Tulsidas and others v Government of A P and/others observed that the beneft accrued earlier by way of grant of higher pay or reVised pay, cannot be taken away as the rsame is Violative of Article 14 and 16 of the Constitution of lndra being arbitrary, unreasonable and expropriatory 8) This Court, in the case of Vldyadhar Tiwari Vs State of ‘Chhattrsgarh & others has held that for the excess payment if any, made to the petitioner, he was not at fauit and the amount received by hfm might , have been used by adjusting himself accordingly treating the same as hts i 1995 Supp (1) soc 2o AIR 2003 so 43 zoos (1) MPHT 105(ce) 53 ‘ “ p y . , v- d salary At this smgei directing rscovery of the alleged eicess amount fram‘ the pensuonary benetits of the petitioner w1ll not be Just and proper 9) In viaw of the reasons mentioned herelnabove, this petition Is allowed The Impugned letter dated 12-12-2008 (Annexure PH), directing recovery a sum of Rs. 43,513I- on account of excess payment made, to the petitioner, is V hereby quashed. The petitioner is entitled to full pensionary benefits/gratuity , r amount without any deduction If the amount has been recovered the petitioner rs 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 Rute 65 of the Chhattrsgarh Crvrt Servrces (Pension) Rules, 1976, If so edvrsed, m accordance with law following basic principles of natural justice. No order asto cost. Sd/- Satlsh K Agmhotn Judge s I