HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WRIT PETITION (S) N0. 5076 of2008 PETITIONER : Poorna Chandra Mishra (Retired Lecturer) S/o late Shri G.D. Mishra aged about 62 years, R/o C-6, Govt. Politechnic Rumgara, Post Balco Nagar, District Korba (CG). VERSUS 1. State of Chhattisgarh Through the Secretary, Higher Education Technical Education & Janshakti Niyojan Department, D.K.S. Bhawan, Raipur (CG). 2. The Joint Director Treasury Accountant and Pension, Bilaspur, District Bilaspur (CG). 3. The Director Technical Education Deparlment Chhattisgarh, Raipur. 4. The Principal, Govt. Politechnic Korba District Korba (CG). WRrr PErmON UNDER ARHCLE 226 OF THE CONSTmmON OF 1ND1A s13: Hon’ble Shri Satish K Agnnmm, J. Present: Shri Sanjay Patel, Advocate for the petitioner. Shri Arun Sao, Govt. Advocate for the State. ORAL ORDER (Passed on 15$ day of September, 2008) LA. No. 01, application for taking adidavit on record, is ordered as prayed for. With the consent of learned counsel appearing for the parties, the matter is heard finally. 2) The petitioner was initially appointed as a Lecturer on 29.1 1.1971 in the respondents department. He retired horn service on attaining the age of superannuation on 3 1 .03.2008. The petitioner received a letter dated 1 1.04.2008 (Annexure P/2), directing recovery of a sum of Rs. 80,536/- on account of excess payment made to the petitioner. ?\/ 3) Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was not given any opportunity to explain about the payment made to the petitioner. Thus, this order is vitiated for want of compliance ofthe principles of natural justice and fair play in-action. Learned counsel linther 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 nom time \\ ‘ ' to time. No reason has been assigled asto on which count the excess payment, \\ \p “\‘5 'u if any, was made. The respondents cannot recove: the amount, already paid to the petitioner, that too without following the principles ofnatural justice. ) Learned counsel appearing for the respondents/State submits that it is true that no show cause notice was given to the petitioner. The petitioner was not called upon to submit her explanation for payment 0f alleged excess payment and recovery thereatter. 5) The respodent authorities have not followed the principles of natural _ justice and the impugned action has been taken without Eording an opportunity o hearing to the petitioner. The practice of passing order involving civil consequences, without show cause notice or without ah‘ording an opportunity, is condemned. Thus, this action of deducting Rs. 80,536l- hom retiral due is bad on account of the fact that the petition was not aiforded any opportunity of hearing efore the impugned action was taken, also. 6) The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Sahih Ram Vs. State of Haryana and hers‘ in para 5 has held as under: “5. However, it is not on account of any misrepresentation made by the appellant that the benefit of higher pay scale as given to him but by wrong construction made by the Principal for which th appellant cann be held to be at fault. Under the circumstances, the amount paid till date may not be recovered from the appellant.” 7) The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of P. Tulsidas and others v. Government of A.P. and othersz, observed that the benefit accrued earlier by way of grant of higher pay or revised pay, cannot be taken away as the same is violative of Article 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India being arbitary, unreasonable and expropriatory. p, g ;‘ 1995 Supp (1) scc 20 \\»\\\2araac03 sc 43 4 n a f s er b ot w e ot 8) This Court, in the case_ of Vidyadhar Tiw§1i Vs. State of Chhattisgarh & others3 has held that for the excess payment, if any, made to the petitioner, he was not at fault and the amount received by him might have been used by adjusting himself accordingly treating the same as his salary. At this stage, directing recovery of the alleged excess amount liom the pensionary benefits of the petitioner will not be just and proper. 9) In view of the reasons mentioned hereinabove, this petition is allowed. The impugned letter dated 11.04.2008 (Annexure P/2) directing recovery a sum of Rs. 80,536/- 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 been recovered, the petitioner is entitled to the said amount with interest at the rate of 6% per annum. However, it is openvto the respondents to take any step, if so advised, in accordance with law following basic principles ofnatmal justice' /, ii Sd/— . J :‘iSatish K. Agmhotrn Judge ‘z ‘ 3 2006 (1)1v1PHT 105 (CG) Pi