^,.. w' ^ ^ ^ f^' < /,-. HIGH COURT OF CHHATTtSGARH ALglUlSIPyg WRIT RETIT10N (S) No. 57®8©(2008 PETITIONER : Sltaram Upadhy^ S/o MoNintel Upadhyay, Aged about 62 Years,R/o Ballainthpur Raigarti, Tah. & Otett. Raigarti (C.G.) VERSUS RESPONDENTS : i. State of Chhattls^rti Through ^retary, School Education Department, Mantealaya, D.KS. Bhawan, Raipur(C.6.) 2. The Dlstrict Ed'ucation Officer, Distt. Ra^ift (C.G.) 3. The Divisional Joint Dlrector, Treasuty Account & Penslon Offtee, Bllaspur (G.G.) 4. The Treasurer Raigarii, Treasurer Office Ralgarti (CJQ.) WRIT PFnTION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTtON OF INDJA SB: Hon'Me ShriSatlsh K. Afinihotri. J. Present: Shri Vjneet K. Pandey, Advocate forthe petitioner Smt.Smita Ghal, Panel LawyerTorthe State/re^»ondents. ORALORDER (Passed on 27th day of March, 2009) 1. With the consent of the parties, the matter is heard finatly. 2. By thls petltion, the petM:loner Impugns tlie onler ttated 22.07.2008 (Annexure P/l) passed by the respondent No. 3 whereby It has been directed to deduct a sum of Rs. 50,040/- as excess peyment made to the petitloner, from the pensionaiy beneflts. 3. Shri Pandey, leamed counsel appearing for the petittoner submlte that the issue asto whether recovety of excess payment can be made wlthout followlng principles of natural justlce is no longer res /ntegra, the same has been settled by the Supreme Court In the matter of Sahib Ram v. State of Haryana and others1, and TurtherfoUowed bythls Court in the matter of Vldyadhar Tlwarl v. Tfte State of ChhaWsgarh & Otfters2 and Vidya Shankar Tlwart v. State of MJP. (Now State of ChhaWsgarti) and omers3. In the instant case, the Impugned order has been passed without affording any opportunlty of heartng to tlie petltloner. il98SSupp(l)SCC20 ^ 2006 (i)MPHT 105 (C6) 3 2006(2)MPMT 31 (06) s^ Ainit Smt. Ghal, learned Panel Lawyer do not controvert the aHegation that no opportunlty of hearing was afforded before the Impugned orders were passed. However, he retles on Rule 65 of the Chhattisgarh GMI Services (Penslon) Rules, 1976 (for short 'the Rules, 1976') Tor the purpose of recoveiy and adjustment of Goveminent dues. The contention of the petttloner that even tor exercising power under Rule 65 of the Rules, 1976, bastc princlptes of natural Justlce and fair play in action are required to be followed. In the present case, the State/authorlties have not afforded any opportuntty of h^rtng to the petitioner to put forward hls case asto why the deductton fram the gratuity amount being excess amount cannot t>e made. The contention of the learned counsel Tor the petitioner mertts acceplance. This Court, in the case of Vftfyacffiar TAyarf (supra), has held that the excess payment, If any,made to the petltloner, he was not at ISult and the amount recelved by hlm mlglrt have been used by adjust'ing himself accordingty treatlng the same as his salary. At thls stage, dlrecting recoveiy of the alleged excess amount from the penslonaiy benefits/gratuity amount of the petltionere witl not be just and proper. In view of the foregoing and as admltted by learned counsel appearing for the partles, this petition te allowed ln the terms of the order passed In the case of Vfffyadhar Tlwarl (supra) i.e. the impugned order dated 22.07.2008 (Annexure P/l) regarding recovery ot Rs. 50,040/- from the retlrai dues of the petitloner is hereby quashed. The petttloner is entltled to full pensionaiy beneTits/gratuity amount wlthout any deductlon. The amount so deducted by order datect 22.07.2008 (Annexure P/l) be paid to the petltioner wlth 6% simpte interest per annum. However, It is open to the respondents t@ take recourse to Rule 65 of the Ruies, 1976, If so advised, in accordance with law,after following baslc prlnclples of natural Justlce. No order asto costs. Sd/- Satish K. Agnihotri Judge