^^ iT WRIT PETITiON (S} No. 1580 of 2009 IQNER Smt. Indira Kunju (Retired Lecturer), W/o Shri E.S.N.Kunju, Aged about 63 years, R/o Suiya Garden, Civi! Lines, Moharbadpara, Kanker, Distt. Kanker Chhattisgarh. th Secrete irtment of Educatio iantraiaya, Raipur, ivisiona! Joint Director, Chhattisgarh. District Treasury WRIT PETST! UNDER ARTiCLE 226 OFTHE CONSTITUTION OF iNDIA SB: Hon'bie Shri Satish K. Affnihotri. J. Present: Shri Pawan Shrivastava, Advocate for the petitioner. er for the State/respondents 1 and 3. i. With the consent of the parties, the matter is "neard finaily. Sy th! (Annexure P/i) passed by the No. 2 directing for recovery of a sum of Rs. 6Q,657/- from the retlral dues of the petitioner, because this amount was wrongiy & shri Shrivastava, learned counse! appearlng for the petitioner submits that the issue asto whether recoveiy of excess payment can be made stice is no ionger res jnta&r 'saM'o Ram v. Court in the m n m iers3. ln~ e instant case, been passed without affording any opportunity of hearing to the ••^iiISGSi.^ »189SSupp $1) SCC 20 220Q6(i)MPHTi05(C6) 3 2006 (2)MPNT 31 (CQ) ~>SS' 4> 4. Shri Sao, learned Government Advocate appearing w)th Ms. Jain, attQt iuies, 1976') for the 5. The contentlon of the petitloner that even for exercising power under Ruie 65 of the Ruies, 1976, basic principies of naturai justice and fair piay in action are requlred to be foilowed. in the present csse, the State/authorities have not afforded any Qpportunity of hearing to the kt-i excess payment, If any, made to the petitioner, he was not at fauif and the amount rscelyed by him mlght have been used by adjustinj treating the same as his saiaiy. At this stage, the ajieged excess amount from the pensionary of She petitioners will not be just 7. in vlew toregoing and >, this oetition is ailowed in the terms of the order passed the cass of VicSyadhar Tlwai (Annexure P/l) .e. U of Rs. 60,657/-from the rstirai dues of the petitioner is hereby quashed. The petitioner is ieduction. The a »0.09.2007(Annexure However, it is open to recourse to Rule 65 of the Rules, 1976, if so :h la r==i r Sd/- SatishK.Agnihotri Judge 11]1