'HIGH CQERT GF CHEATT§§GI§RH: EILASFUR m a0 Wraa Petmaésigo. 123 of 23% Devendra Kumaar Bubey. aged about 55 yiearsi Sic. Late Shri'Narsingh \Prasad Dwey, Rei§$ed ELL Ric Vidya Manéir Gharghoda, Distt. Raigam (CG) Versus Q} Skate Govt‘ of Chha‘disgarh ihrouqh the $ecretary, Finance Depanmegt, 3K8 Bmwara Raipur, Dis‘r‘c. Raépar g ("\ 2} Divisicnai .ioint Dimmer {Treasury Arrount and Pensien), Bilaspur. Disi‘t. r}: asp “ \Cm 3) Esit TreaSLiw Amomt ard Pension. Qaigauh a.” “t Ra:garh (”G‘ PetPdemer Raswoniieww )» {‘I \Wrii a é etiiien under Art%c§e 225 of :5Jne Lorastkation ~ of ind§a.) Singke Eeugh H0“: m“ “r $at§sh K. Agmha‘§:3, J. §resent Mr $or1kantv’ egumsei far the petiticner. Mt Arum Sac, Govt. Advecata for the State. GRAL “RDER {Passer‘ on 1r" may m i=ebruan; 2G§§i W§th the consent of ieamed counse? aspearing for the eertiee, the maitei' is heard finaiEv. 2) The petmoner whiie working as DU in respondents’ deparimen"; retired f—Vo'n eewabes a?‘e. attam: g ‘1e age o. suserann ation on 30-6-2803 Therea‘xer ’ihe petiioeer way/ed 3e‘Le. d ed 14 1b-2OG4 {Awnexnhve PM) direc‘iizg recovery of a sum of Re 9594f—or aocoam o: exe s: payment maee to the pet§iioner. \ 33 Leamed counse? appear§ng fei' ihe oeiiiioner Subm§is that the oetEiioner was moi g'wen any opeoaumi‘ i0 expiahe aboet the eayz‘ne e. maee ‘Eo ‘zhe oeiitmnea’. Thee. i‘nis order is Vi€§e€ed fo.’ wan: of compiiance of toe princio§es of naéma? §u3t§oe and fair may in-aoiion. Leemed oounsei fufzher submits that there is no faui": on the par? of the oeiiiioner and ihe amoun: is paxd to him m aeoordawoe x“. %he pay ecaEea, reviseoi and fixed by ihe {espondems from‘time to time. No reason has been assigned as‘to on which J t» caunt ihe excess payment! if any, was made. The resporidenis caiwnci: recover the amoumt, already paid to the petitionei’ affer his fetirement, ‘thai :00 wiimut fcEiowing ihe prmcipEes of naiurai jusiice. Learned counsei amoearing foa' ihe responden’zs/Staie submts Ehai §i is true that no Show cause mime was given i9 the eet§i§oeei The eetmonei’ was net caiied ueon 10 submit ms exeienaiion for eavmem 0:3 ai§e§ed excess eaymeni and recovery iheree¥fet The respondent au‘ihei’iiies have noé: folioWed {fie princimes of ne‘iura} }ust§ce and ihe impugned amen has been taken withou? affording an opportunity of hearing ta ihe eeii‘iibnen The preciiee of eassieg order §nvoiving civii consequences, wi%hout Show causeno‘tice or withoui adording an opportunity. is ccndemned‘ Thus. a §s action 0f deducting Rs.19,5’:34i— fmm reiirai dues is bad on accouni 0f the faci that the peiiiionea' was not afferded anv opportunity of hearino before the impugned aciiori was taken, The Hon’bie Supfeme Conn in the case of Sahih Ram Vs. $Taie o? Haryana and othei‘si in pare 5 has held as under: “5. However. ii is not on account of any misrepreeentation made by rhe appeiiant mar the benefii of higher pay soaie was given i0 him but by wrong construction made by the Principai for which the appeiiant Cannot be heid to be at fauié‘ Under the circumsiances, the amoent paid iii: date may not be reoovered from the appeiian‘a." The Hon’bie Supreme Court in the ease of R 'i'uisides and others y Government or AF: and othersz, oioserved that the benefit acorued earlier by way of grant of higher pay or revised pay, cannot be taken away as the same is vioiative of Articie/M aadmie of the Constitution of india being arbitrary, unreasonabie and expropriatory. ‘i’his Court, in the case of Vidyadhar ‘iiwari Vs. $tate oi C‘nhattisgarh 8: others3 has held that for ihe excess payment, if anyi made to the petitioner, he was not at fauit and the amount received by hi'n might have been need by adiusting himself accordingiy treating the same as his salary. At ihis stage, directing recoVery of the alleged excess amount from the oensionarv benefits of the petitioner will not be inst and proper. ireee Supp n) soc 2o r Ala 2993 so 43 n) MPHT 195 ice) 9"; in v'iewbf the masons mentioned hereinabove, this petiiion is a§iowed. The impugned ietter dated 144 0-2004 (Annexure P11): directing recovery a sum of Rs. 19,594!- 0n eccount of excess payment made to ihe petmoner, is hereby quashed. The petitieher is entitled to fuii pensienary benefits/gratuity amount without any deduction if the amount has beeh recovered, ihe petitioner is ehtitied to the said amount with ihterest at the rate of 8% get ahhum. Howevet, it is open to the resoohdehts to take recourse to Ruie 65 of the Chhatttsgath Civil Sen/ices {Pensiori} Rutes, $76, if so advised, in accotdance with iaw foiiowing basic otihcipies of natutai justice. No order asto costs. I i Satish K. Agnihgtri ‘ Judge ‘i i Sd/—