Peu'tioner Versus Respondents 1. (SB: Hon’blc Shri Satish K. Agnjhoui J.) Shri R. K. Kesherwani, Advocate for thepet'u'oner. Shn' ANind Dubey, Panel Lawyer for the State/ respondents. Ram Sharan Shanna, aged 64 years, S/o Late Bunde Lal Shanna, retired Upper Division Teacher, mm Govt. High School, Kodwabani (Karhl), Block Educauon omcer Mungeli Dlsmct Bllaspur R/o Mungeh D1stnct B1laspur(CG) State of Chhattisgarh, Through its Secretary, Department of School Education, Mantralaya, D.K.S. Bhawan, Raipur The Divisional Joint Director, Tmasury, Account and Pension, Bilaspur Division, Bilaspur The Dlsmct Education omcer, Bilaspur (C G) The Block Education Ofncer, Mungeh Dlstnct — Bilaspur ,(C.G.) WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA (Passed on this 1 l'h Day ofApril, 2009) ORDER With the consent of learned counsel appearing for the parties, the matter is heani finally. 2.‘ Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner, while working as Upper Division Teacher, retired from service on attaining the age of superannuation on, 31.12.2006. After his retirement, by order dated 29. 12.2006 (Annexum P/ 1), a sum of Rs. 17,763/- has been directed to be recovered nom the retiral dues of the petitioner 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 yment made to the petitioner Thus this order 1s whated for want of compliance of the pnn01ples of natural Justice and fair play 1n action Learned counsel fuither submits that there 1s no fault on the part of the petitioner and the amount is paid to him HIGH COURT OF CHI-IA'ITISGARH : BILASPUR Writ Petition (S) No. 1894 of2009 G)? Va; in accordance with the pay scales, revised and &ed by the respondents mm 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 petitioner after his reu'rement, that too without following the principles of natural justice. Lealned Panel Lawyer appearing for the State submits that it is apparent that no show cause notice was given to the peu'tioner. The petitioner was not called upon to submit his explanation for payment of alleged excess payment and recovery thereafter. However, .the petin'oner is not entitled to any interest as the cause of action arose to the petitioner in January, 2007 and the petitioner has approached this Court on 8.4.2009 by nling the present petition. Thus, the petitioner is not entitled to any interest as is granted in some cases. The respondent—authorities have not followed the principles of natural justice and the impugned action has been taken Without ah'ording an opportunity of hearing to the peti1ioner. The practice of passing order involving civil consequences, without show cause notice or without ah'ord’ing an opportunity of hearing is condemned. Thus, this acu‘on of deducting Rs. 17,7631- hem retrial dues is bad on account of the fact that the petitioner was not aEorded any opportunity of hearing before the impugned action was taken. 6. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Shyam Babu Verna and others Vs. Union of India and othersl, has held that. the employees who have received higher scale due to no tault of theirs, it shall only be just and proper not to recover any excess amount already paid to them. 7. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Sahib Ram Vs. state of H’aryana. and others? , in para 5 held, as under. “5. However, it is not on account of any misrepresentation made by the appellant that the beneht of higher pay scale was given to him but by wrong construction made by the Principal for which the appellant cannot be held to be at fault. Under 1. l {(1994) 2 sec 521} 2 { 1.995 Supp (1) SCC 20} \r .\ ‘-3’ the circnmstances, the amount paid h‘ll date may not be mcovered ham the appellant.” The Hon’ble Supleme Court in the matter of P. Tukidm Vand others Vs. Government of A.P. and othersa , obscured that the benem accrued earlier by way of grant of higher pay or revised pay, cannot be taken away as the same is violau've of Article 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India being arbiuary, unreasonable and expropriatory. This Court in the matter of Vldhyadhar Tiwari Vs. State of Chhattisgarh 85 others‘, held that for the excess payment ifany, made to the petitioner, he was not at fault and the amount Ieceived by him might have been used by adjusn‘ng himself accordingly treating the same as his salaxy. At this stage, dhecu'ng mcovery of the alleged excess amount h'om the pensionary benehts of the petitioner will not be just and proper. 10. In View of the forgoing, the petition is allowed. The impugned Older dated 29. 12.2006 (Annexure P] 1) in regard. to the recovexy of Rs. 17,763/—, on account of excess payment made to the petitioner, is hereby quashed. The petitioner is entitled to full pensionaiy benehts/ gratuity amount without any deducu'on. If the amount has already been recovered, the petitioner is entitled to the said amount without any interest. However, it is open to the respondents/State to take recourse to Rule 65 of the Chhath‘sgarh Civil Services (pension) Rules, 1976, if so advised, in accordance with law, following the basic principles of natural justice. No order asto costs. Sdl— ‘1 Satish K. Agnihotri Judge 5 { 2006 (1) M.P.Hm 105 (c.G.)} 1{A.I.R. 2003 so 43;