{1 i 4 ! \ I L ‘1 I I t 1 ' ‘ H‘R CHHG AT ELAUR' WRIT PETITION (S) No. 4553 of 2008 PETITIONER ' i RE PONDENTs m#A_ H “WWW‘ “WV,"H Ai.g WRIT PETI HON UNDER ARIILLE 226 OI‘ THE CONE: I 1 fU'l EON OF INDIA i SB Hon’bie Shn Sails}: K Aginhotn, J Present: g Ratneshwar Prasa<i Bajpai, aged aboui 63 years son of Late Vasude'o Bajpai, Resident ef Behind Sodhj Petrol 13111111), Jagéalpur Distrmt Ba tax (C G) VERSUs State of Chhamsgarh, through the Secretary, Department of - Tribal Development, D.K.S.Bhawan, Raiplgr (CWG‘) The Director, Pubme Instructions, (c G) The Priuupai Dlsti ct Institute of Teaehmg District Bastar ' Aamaouda Raipur ‘anci Education? Jagciaipur (CG) The lomt Erector Account. Penelon md Treasury, Jagdalpur Dxstnct Easter {C G 3 The Commissioner; Tribal Development, Raipur {c.G.) ’ The Assrstant Development Jdgdalpur (Ctr) ' Commissioner: Tribal Dietrict Easter ORAL ORI)ER (Passed m1mgust, 2008) 1r With the conserrt ofrleamed counsel appearing for the parties, the matter ’ is heard finally. 2. _ The petitioner was initially appointed as Lower Division Teacher 1: : {Assistant Teacher) in the Education Department. He retired from i serv1ce on attaining the age of superannuation on 31 01 2007 Atter ins i , ' retirement the petitioner received the order dated 31 05 2007 (Annexure P/2), directing recovery of a sum of Rs. 65,164/— on account of excess payment made tothe petitioner. 3. :Leamed connsel appearing for the petitioner submitsxthet the petitioner 4’ ‘ \ , ‘ _ was not given any opportunity to expiain about the payment made to the E‘ I v. bhn P P Sahu Advocate tor the petmoner Shn P K Bhadurl Panel Lawyer for the State/respondents IGHCOUT OF ATTISARH BSP S petitioner. Thus, this order is Vitiateg for want of compiiance of the i pfinciples of natural justice and fairgplay in action. Learned counsel i y further submits that there is no fault oh the paxt ofthe petitioner arid the amount is paid to him in accordanceiwith the pay scales, revised and fixed by the respondents iiom time to time. No reason has been assigned asto on which count the excess payment, if any, was made. The respondents cannot recover the amount, already paid to the oetitioner after his retirement}, that too without following the principles of natural justice. 4. learned counsel appearing for the respondents/State submits that it is tme that no show cause notice was given to the petitioner. The petitioner was not called upon to submit his explanation for payment of alleged excess payment and recovery thereafter. The respondent-authorities have not followed the principles of natural justice and the impugned action has been taken without affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. The practice of passing order invoiving civil consequences, without show cause notice or without aii‘ording an opportunity, is condemned. Thus, this action of deducting Rs. 65,164/— from retrial dues is had on account of the fact that the petitioner was not afforded any opportunity of hearing before the impugned action was taken. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Sahib Ram Vs. State of Haryana and othersl , in para 5 held, as under: “5. However it is not on account of any misrepresentation made by the appellanfthat the benefit of higher pay scale was given to him but by wrong construction made by the Principal for which the , {1995 . . Supp (1) scc20} , @ appellant cannot be heid to be at ihuit. Under the circumstances; the amount paid till date may not be recovered frOm the appeli’ant,” 7. i The Hon,"ble Supreme Court in the mader ofP. Tulsz‘a’as cmd oihers V's. ?‘ Government ofA.P. and ofhersg 7 0b ierved that ‘the baneflt accrued g earlier 5y way of grant of highar’ pay ér revised pay, cannot be taken away as the same is Violative of Alticle E14 and 16 ofthe Constitution of -3_ z i Imiia being arbitrary, unreasonable and expropriatory. This Court in the matter of Wdhyadhar Tz’warz‘ Vs. Siate QfChhatziSgarh &' etkersi \heid that for the exeess payment if any, made to the petitioner, he was not at fault and the amount received by him might have been used by adjusting himseifaccording'ly treating the same as his salary. At this stage, directing recovery of the alieged excess amount tirom the pensionary benefits of the petitioner will not be just and proper. 9. i In View of the forgoing, the petition is allowed. The impugned ordef dated 31.05.2007 (Annexure 13/2), directing recovery of Rs. 65,164/—, on account of excess payment made to the petitioner, is hereby quashed. The petitioner is entitled to full pensionary benefits/gratuity amount without any deduction. If the amount has already been recovered, the petitioner is entitled to the said amount with interest at the rate of 6% per annum. However, it is open to the respondents/State to take recourse to Rule 65 ofthe Chhattisgarh €ivii. Services (pension) Rules, 1976, if so advised, in accordance with law, tbilowing the basic principles of t i ‘ tish‘K. Agnihotri Judge ’ >~ 2 MR. 2003 so 43 " 2006 (1) M.P.H.T. 105 (cg) I natural justice. No order asto costs. Sdl- S rm