H1GH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH: BILASPUR Petitioner Respondents WritPetition (Sl No. 43^of 2008 Mohit Ram Rathia, S/o Pain Singh Rathia, aged about 66 years, R/o village Jhitebahal, post Ljbra, Block Tamnar, Distt. Raigarh (CG). Versus •' 1) State of Chhattisgarh through the Secretary, Tribal Welfare Department, D.K.S. Bhawan, Raipur, District Raipur 2) The " Joint Director, Treasury Accountent and Pension, Bilaspur, District Bilaspur (CG). 3) Assistaot Commissioner, Tribal Wetfare Department, Raigarh, District Raigarh (CG). 4) Btock EducationQfficer, BlockTamnar, District ^aigarh (CG). 0/Vrit Petition under Article 226 ofthe ConstituCon of india.) Singte Bench : Hon'ble Mr. Satish K. Agnihotri, J. Present: Shri Sanjay Patel, counsei for tfie petitioner. Smt. Smita Ghai, Panel Lawyer for the State. ORALORDER (Passed on 8 day ofAugust, 2008) The petitionerwas appointedas an Assistant Teacher on2-7-1962 in the respondents department. The petitioner retired from services on attaining the age of superannuation on 30-8-2004. After his retirement, the petitioner received a letter dated 2-11-2004 (Annexure P/1) directing recovery of a sum of Rs.^5,059/- on account of excess payment made to the petitioner. 2) Learned counsel appearing for the petiUoner submits that the petitioner was notgiven any opportunity to explain his case. Thus, this order is vitiated for want of comptiance of theprinciptes of nafairal justice and fair play in-action. Learned counsel Turttoer submite that ttiere 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 respondente jffom timeto time. Therespondentscannot recoverthe amount, already paid r 2-- ^i to the petitioner after his retirement, ttiat foo without foilcwing the principles of natural jusUce. 3) Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the respondents/State submits that it istrue that no show cause noticewas given to the peUUoner. The communications made between the offlcers was endorsed to the petitioner. The petitioner was not called upon to submit Ws explanation for payment of alteged excess paymentand recovery#iereafter. 4) The respondent authorlties have not foltowed the principles of naturat justice and the impugned action has been taken without affording an opportunity of hearing to the petiUoner. The practice of passing order involving dvil consequences without show causen<rtiee or without affording an opportunity, is condemned. Thus, this action of deducting Rs.45,059/- from retirai dues is bad on account of the fact that the petidoner was not afforded any opportunity of hearing before the impugned action was taken, also. 5} 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. Mowever, it is not on account of any rnisrepresertation made by the appellant ttiat the benefit of higher pay scaie was gh/en to him but by wrong construction roade by the Principal for which the appeilant cannot be held to be at fault. Under the circumstances, the amount paid titl date may not be recovered from the appeliant." 6) The Hon'ble Supreme Courtin frie case of P. Tulsidas and others v. Government of A.P. and offiers2, observed that the benefit accrued eariier by way of grant of higher pay or revised pay, cannot be tak®naway as the same is vioiatwe of Articte 14 and 16of the ConsUtution of fndia being arbitrary, unreasonable and expropriatory. 7) This Court, in the <ase of Vidhadhar Tjwari Vs. State of Chhattisgarh & others has held that for the excess payment, ifany, made to the^etitioner, 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 amoiunt from thepensionarybenefltsofthepetitionerwiltnotbejustandproper. t1995Supp(1)SCC20 2AtR2003SC43 32(X)6(1)MPHT105(CG) Sl ttai' JiBI !BI i$,u ji'lM <' Gowri -3- 8) In view of the reasons mentioned hereinabove, this petiflon is allowed. The impugned letter dated 2-11-2004 (Annexure P/1) directing recovery a sum of Rs.45,059/- on account of excess payment made to the petitioner, is hereby quashed. The peUtioner is entitied to futt pensionary benefits/gratuity amount without any deduction. Jf the amount has been recovered, the petitioner is enUtled to the said amount with interest at the rate of 6% per annum. However, it is open to the respondents to take recourseto Rute 65 of the Chhattisgarh Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1976, if soadvisect, in accordance with law foltowing basic principtes of natural justice. No order asto costs. ^ Sd/- ,, SatishICAgnihotri Judge