HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH: BILASPUR Writ Petition (S) No. 4968 of 2008 Petitioner Rati Ram Sahu, S/o Shri Brij L^l Sahu, aged about 62 years, Retired Forest Guard, R/o Viliage Pikripar, Post Armari Kala, Tahsil Gurur, District Durg Respondents Versus 1) State of Chhattisgarh, through the Secretary, Forest Department. D.K.S. Bhawan, Raipur (CG). 2) The Diviaonai Joint Director, Treasury, Account and Pension, Raipur ravistQn, Raipur (CG). (Writ Petition under Articte 226 of the Constitution of tndia.) Single Bench : Hon'ble Mr. Satish K. Agnihotri, J. Present: Shri Ajay Shrivasteva, counsei for the petitioner. Shri Yashwant Singh Thakur, Dy. Advocate Qeneraf fw State. ORALORDER (Passed on 8th day ofSeptember, 2008) With the consent of learned counsel appearing for the parties, the matter is heard finalty. 2) The petitioner retired from the post of Forest Guard on attainilng the age of superannyation on 30-4-2007. After his retiremcwit, the peffl:ioner received a tetter dated 31-7-2008 (Annexure P/1), directing recovery of a sum of Rs.30,725/- on account of excess payment made to the petttioner. 3) Learned counsel appearing for the peUtioner submits that the petitioner v^is not given any opportunity to explain about the payment made to the petitioner. Thus, this order is vitiated for want of compliance of ttie principles of natural justice and fair play in-action. Learned counset torther submite that there is no fault on the part of the peijtioner and the amount is paid to him jn accordance with the pay scales, revised and fixed by the respondents from time to time. No reason has been assigned asto on which count the excess payment, if any, was made. The respendents cannot recover the amount, already paid to the petitioner after his retirement, that too wlthout following the principles of natural justice. €. 6 4) Learned counsel appearing for the respondente/State submtts that it js true ttiat no show cause notice was given to the petitioner. The petitioner was not calted upon to submit his explanation for payment of alteged excess payment and recovery thereafter. 5) The respondent authorities have not followed ttie princfples of natural justice and the impugned action has been t^cen without affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. The pFactice of passing order invoiving dvil consequences, without show cause notice or without affordjng an opportunity, is condemned. Thus, this action of deducting, Ms.30,72®- from retiral dues is bad on account of the fact that the petitioner ¥i^as not afforded any opportunity of hearing before the impugned actt®nwas talcen, also. 6) The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Sahib Ram Vs. State @f Haryana and others in para 5 has held as under: "5. However, it is not on account of any misrepresentation made by flie appellant that the benefit of higher pay scale was givwi to him but by wrong construction made by the Principal for vrfiich the appellant cannot be held te> be at fautt. Under the circumstances, the amount patet tiii date may not be recovered from the appeilant." 7) The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case <rf P. Tulsidas and othears v. Government of A.P. and ottiers , observed that the beneftt accrued eartier by way of grant of higher pay or revised pay, cannot be takemi away as the same is violative of Articte 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India being arbitrary, unreasonable and expropriatory. 8) This Court, in the case of Vidyadhar Tiwari Vs. State of Chhattisgarh & others3 has held that for the excess |»yment,»any, made to the petitioner, he was not at fault and the amount received by him might have been used by adjusting himsetf accordingly treatfng the ^ime as his salary. At this stage, directing recovery of the alleged excess amount from the pensionary benefite ofthe petitioner wiM not be just and proper. 9) In view of the reasons mentioned hereinaix>ve, this petitton is altovwd. The impugned ietter dated 31-7-2008 (Annexure P/1) directing recovery a sum of Rs.30,725/- on account of excess payment made to the petitioner, Ss 11995 8upp(1)8cc 20 2AIR2003SC43 3 2006 (1) MPHT 105 (CG) r "S^&K^ \!< ^^^^^ ^ ^ Gowri hereby quashed. The petitioner is entitled to full pensionary bemefits/grafciity amount without any deduction. If the amount has been recovered, the petitioner is entStled to the said amount with interest at the rate of @% per annum. However, it is open to the respondente to take recourse to Rute 05 of the Chhattisgarh Civil Services (Pension) Rutes, 1976, if so advised, in accordance with taw following basic principles of natural justice. No order astocosts. - Satish K. Agnihotri Judge a