..^^^s-^M4:'7gS^s'"'st-'.^!&.!'S-':!Sas'''w^i':'. ^r •-^r "<5»' ••'.T ^l Petitioner HIGH COURT OF CHHAmSGARH: BJLASniR WntPetitjon^SlNo. 4346 of 2008 B.S. Sharma, S/o Banchhawar Sharroa, aged about 69 yssrs, R/o Viliage Kathani, Post Kodpaii, Btock Pusour, Distt. Raigarh (CG). Respondents Versys ^ 1) State of Chhattisgarh through the Secretary, School Education Department, D.K.S. Bhawan, Raipur, District Raipur (CG). 2) The Joint Director. Treasury Accountant and Pension, Biiaspur, District Biiaspur (CQ). 3) District Education Officer, Raigarh, District Raigarh (CG). . 4) Principal, Govt. High School, Kod(?ali, BIock Pusour, District Raigarh (CG).\ ; , (Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.) Single Bench : Hon'ble Mr. Satish K. Agnihotri, J. Present: Shri Sanjay Patef, counsel for the petitioner. Smt. Smita Ghai, Panel Lawyer for the State. ORAL ORDER (Passed on 8* day of August, 2008) The petitioner was appointed as an Assistant Teacher on 13-11-1958 in ttie respondents department. The petitioner retired from services on attaining the age of superannuation on 30-9-2001. After his retirement, the petitioner received a letter dated 30-5-2002 (Annexure P/1) directing recovery of a sumof Rs.63,428/- on account of excess payment made to the petitioner. — 2) Leamed counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was not given any opportunity toexplaln his case. Thus, this orcter is vitiated for want of compliance of the principles of natural justice and fair play in-action. Learned counsel further submits that there is no fault on the part of the petitioner and the amount is paid to him in accordance with the pay scales, revised and fixed by the respondents from time to time. The respondents cannot recover the amount, already patd A?=^ l' -'L ^ ^ \ tothe petitioner after his retirement, that too without following the principles of natura! justice. 3) Per contra, learned counset appearing for the respondents/State submits that it is true that no show cause notice was given to the petitioner, The communications made between tfre ofRcers was endorsed to the petitioner. The petitioner was not called upon tosubmit hls explanation for payment of alleged excess payment and recovery thereafter. ^ 4) The respondent authorities have not followed the principles of natural jusUce and the impugned action has been taken without affordmg an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. The practice of passing order involving civil consequences wiftout show cause notice or without affording an opportunity, iscondemned. Thus, this action of deducting Rs.63,428/- from retiral dues is bad on account of the fact that the petitioner was not afforded any opportunityof hearing before the impugney action was taken, also. 5) The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Sahlb Ram Vs. State of Haryanaand ottiers1 in para 5 has held as und6r: "5. However, it is not on account of any misrepresentation mads by the appellant ttiat the benefit of higher pay scaie was given to him but by wrong consfrurtion made by the Principal for which the appeliant cannot be heid to be at fault. Under the circumstances, the amount paid tifl date raay not be recovered from the appeilant." 6) The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of P. Tufsidas and others v. Government of A.P. and others , observed that the benefit accrued earlfer byway of grant of highef- pay or revised pay, cannot be taken away as the same is violative of Article 14 and 16 of the Constitutionof Indfa being arbitrary, unreasonable and expropriatory. 7) This Court, in the case of Vidyatfhar Tiwari Vs. State of Chhattisgarh & others ha?held that for the excess payment, if any, made to thepetitioner, he was not at fault and the amount received by him might have" been used by adjusting himself accordfngly treating the same as his salary. At this stage, directing recoyery of the atleged excess amountfrom the pensionary benefits of the petitioner wlll not be just and proper. 11995Supp(1)SCC20 2AIR2003SC43 '2006 (1) MPHT 105 (CG) w li:i::!Jl n' ii;ii!.;: -^ ^ 8) !n view of the reasons mentioned hereinabove, this peUtion is ailcwed. The impugned letter dated 30-5-2002 (Annexure P/1) directing recovery a sum of Rs.63,428/- on account of excess payment made to the petitioner, is hereby quashed. The petitioner is entitled to full pensionary benefits/gratuity amount without ahy dedudion. If the amount has bsen 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 to take recourseto Rule 65 of the Chhattisgarh Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1976, if so advised, in accordance with law following basic principles of naturat justice. No order asto costs. JiPSowri Sd/- Satish K. Agnihotri Judge WItl Sii'iiM !ii!i| INltt llitl W,l lili