W 0/ é" HIGH MMMW CGURT' OF CHHAW1$QARH E!MS?UR Wr§t Pefition i $Q No. 1$G1 of W33 Petitioner Chandwmani T‘hethwar’ SIG. Ghirir m Thethwalr, aged about 66 years, R/o’r Vinags Khumslegga, Past: Samkera, Tahsn: Tamnar, Dist: Raigarh (CG). Veisus 1) State cf Chhafrisgam thmugh i'ne Secretary, Sehoc! Educaticn Depag’tment, (CG). DKE Bhawan, Rai‘pur; Distréc‘t. Rafgur 2) The Joint Dh'ecter, Treasury Acccuniant {CG} and Pensmn! Biiaspur, E3istrict Biiaspur ’ Raégarh {CQ‘ Resgondents 3} Désmct Education Cffmen Raigam, D§str§ct 4) Bbck Educaticn Offmer, Tamnar, District Raigarh (CG; (Writ Petition underAriicb 226 of the Ccnstitution of mafia.) $§: Hon’bie Mr. $aiish K. ixgmhotrt d. §hriA§a”r’ij‘é§5a~t’é‘if“EELirhééiForthe oetstecner "“ M Shri PK. Bhaduri, Pam: Lawyer farthe State. \' ORAL GRDER (Paswd on 3’” day 9f Juiy, 2098) The pet§tioner was appointed as an Ase§etant Teacher on 5‘94 9m . i‘he‘ respondenfs department. The petitiener retired from services an attaining the age of s retirement, the petitioner received a fetter euperannuation on 30!?1I2DU3. Afrer hi dated 75—26% (Annexure PM) directing recovery a sum of R3235?! 7L on acocunt of excess payment made to the petitioner. 2) Learned counsel appearing for the pe" not given any opportunity to expiain the paymeot made to the petitioner. Thus, this order is vitiated for want of compiianoe or the principies of nature. justice and fair piay inaction. Learned oounsei further submits that there ie no fault on t’ne part oi to 'nim in accordance with the pay scaies, revised and fixed by the respone’ents From time to time. recover the amount, aiready paioi to the petitioner after his retirement, that too without foiiowing the principies of naturai justice. Litioner submits that the petitioner was \~, ~ the petitioner and the arnount is paid The respondents cannot w 3) Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the respeMaats/State submits that it is true that no show cause mime was given to the petiticner. The communications made between the officers was endorsed to the petitioner‘ The petitioner was not caiied upon to submit his exoianatton for pavment of aiieged xcess payment and recovery thereafter 4) r The resnondent—authoritiee have not toiiowed the principles of natural instroe and t‘n‘e impugned action has been taken without affording an opportunity of hearing to t‘ne petitioner. The practice of passing order invoiving oivii consequences without show cause notice or without affording an opoortunitv, is condemned. Thus, this action of deducting Rs.20,417l- from retirai dues is bad on account of the fact that the petitioner was not afforded any opportunity of hearing before the impugned action was taken, also. 5) The Horrible Supreme Court in the case of Sahib Ram Vs. $iate of Haryana and others! in para 5 has hetd as under: “5. However, it ts not on account of any misrepresentation made by the appeiiant that the beneht of higher pay scaie was given to him out 'oy wrong construction made by the Principal for which the appeiiant cannot be held to be at fault Under the circumstances, the amount paid till date may not be recovered from the appeitant.” 6) The Hon’cte Supreme Court in the case of P. Tulsidas ano others v. government of AR and others 2, observeo that the benefit accrued eeriier by way of grant of higher pay or revised pay, cannot be taken away as the same is vioiative of Arttcle 14 and to of the Constitution of india betng arbitrary, unreasonable and expropriatoryr 7) This court, in the case of Vidhadhar Tiwari Vs. State of Chhattisgarh & others3 has held that for the excess payment if any, made to the petitioner, he was not at fauitand the amount received by him might have been used by adjusting himseif accordingly treating the same as his salary. At this stage, directing recovery of the aiteged excess amount from the pensionary benefits of the petitioner wiii not be iust ano proper. 1 A 1995 Supp r1) soc 20 ‘ \, 2 AIR 2003 so 43 \K 3 2006 (1) Mpm‘ 105 (CG) \c \ 8) in View of the reasons mentioned hereinabove, this petition is a; The impugned !etter dated 17-6-2004 (Annexure Pm Rs. 20,41 71’- Es hereby ! pensionary benefits/gratuity amount red, the petitioner is lowed. directing recovery a sum cf on account of excess payment made to the petitioner, quashed. The petitioner is emitted to fuf without any deduéticn. {f the ameum has been recove entiiied to the said amount with interest at the rate oi 6% per annum. Hats/ever) recourse to Ruie 65 of the Ch’nattisgarn it is apen is the respondents to take Civil Services (Pension) Ruiee, 1W5, if $0 advised in accordance with iew feiiowing basic principiee of naturai justice. No order asto costs. i wreeev/ sd/_ Satish K. Agnihetri Judge @