prrf"fe"^ i.i'^'ii 3 '"s'^v-'s'iy ^"f Sammela! Nirala S/o Lals .Rungy Nirala, 65 yeat-s, Retired Assistatit Teaclier, Vffla, •I'S'^ .t-T'IST f£.V. '/^,^.u-. .. Stste of Cbhattisgarh 'Ilirouah; The Scfaool Educatioa Departnient, D.K.J B 2. Tlie Joint Director, Aceount Treasury Bilaspur (C.G.) 3. Tlie District Educa'tioa Officer, Raig^ ^^..-4 ETPETmONL?NDER ARJ1CLE226QF THE CONSTFrUTION QF INDIA Shri Y.S.Thakur, Deputy Advocate Geiieral forthe Stata'respotident No. 1.3and4. • • ^ (Passed oa 08m day of April, 2008) 1. Bv Assistant Teacher on 01.09.1960. He retired from service on 31.12. Teacher. Vide order dated 31.10.2005 issued by the respondent P/3) it was petitioner. duesoftiie 3. Being aggrieved, the petitioner has filed this petitiwi praying that ttie impugned ca-der dated 31.10.2005 ("Annexiire P/3) fbr recoverv of a sum deducting excess amount. opportunity of hearing to put fbrward his case, is illegal, arbitrary and !Ri '/. that he has not received any exoess payment and the recovery ofthe above-said am.ount mav not be made. part of the petftioner and the amount is paid to him in accordance with fhe pay scales, revised and fixed by the respoadents from time canaot recover the amount, already paid to ttie principles of natura] iustice. Leamed eounsel fiirther not wgnt to press other reiiefe on merit, except •tfaat paid to the petitioaer amount on account of exeess 5. On the otiier haad, leamed counsel appearing fbr the respondents/State fhat siace the pay of fhe petitioner was fixed contrary to the provisioiis and on scrutinv. it recovered from the retiral benefita/gratuity amount of fhe petitiouer, even on '.a1!'tt*^yy>A & 6. The Supreme Court, inthe sase ofSahibRam Vs. State oflfarycmaynd olhers, m para 5 has held as is not on tfae appellant tliat the benefit of lugiier pay soale ie appellant caimot be held to be at fault. Uader mces the appeliant.: Civ.il Services (Pension) Ru'les, 1976 (fbr short. 'the Rules, 1976') dues. Rute 65 ofthe Ru stment of Govermnent dues Govemmetit-ser' >e ifae clear a.11 Goverriment dues befbre the date ofhis retirement. Govemment servant does not cl sueh dues are ascertaiaabl (a.) an. equivalent cash dep'osil. may be takeu from Um; or 199S Snpp (S)SCC -T-~—~-~ 9. (b) out offhe gratuity payabte to hirn, his nomiaee aii amount ctjrtaS to tliat reooverable. ou accouiit GovemmeDt diies shall be deducted. t^xpkmation-1. ' .6 expression 'ascertainablf dyos' mcludes balaticc of house buildiag advance, arrears of rent and other charges ixscupation of Govemflieat Accoimnodatioii, pay and aUowances and arrears of income tax source undertiie Ii'icome Tax Act, 1961' 8. The contention of the petitioner that even for exercising power under Rti.ie 65 of 1.976, basic principles of aaturai justice and fair play in action are of hearing to the petitioner to put forward his case seto why the from the gt'atuity amount ofthe leamed counsel fbr the petifioner merits acceptance. This Coirt .2 aot at fau himself the case of Vidyadhar Tiwari Vs. The State of Chhattisgarh & that the excess paymest, if any, made to the petitioner, he was the amouut received bv him misht have been used by adjustins dv treatine Ihe same as his salarv. At amount of'the petitioneT will not bejust aad proper. In view offke fbregoing and as a.dmitted bv leamed parties, this petition is allowed in fhe terms of the Vidyadhar Tiwari (supra) i.e. the impugned order dated 31.10.2005 (Annexiirc 29.815/- from itioner is entitled However. the respondents are at liberty, if so advised, to take recourse to Ru.ie 65 of tfie Rules, 1976, in accwtSance wifh law and basic principles ofnatura] justice. No order asto costs. Sd/- SatishK.Agiiffiotri Judge i •2006 (!) MPHT i05 (CG)