HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR \Vl'it Petition (SQ No. 3’7 14 01'20Q8 PETKTIONER Dine$hwar Prasad Chandraker aged 63 y¢ar$5 Son of Iaie Shri Mahan La} Chandraker, Retired Principal; Govcmment Highar Secmdary SchooL Daragaon (CG), Disti. Durg. VERSUS RESPONDEN'I‘S L The State of Chhattisgarh Through the Secretary School Education Department Minisity, DKS Bhawana Raipur (CG), 2. Sambhagiya Sanyukta Sanchaiak, Kosh, Lekha and Pension; Raipur (CG), 3. District Education 0%}cer, Durg (CG). {WRIT PE’i‘i’l‘ION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA) (SB: Hen'ble Mr. Satish K. Ag1ihotri, J.) Present : Shri Somkant Verma, Advocate for the petitioner, Shri M.P.S. Bhatia, Dy. Govt. Advoacte for the State. ORAL ORDER (Passed on this 12m day 0f Septemher, 2008) With the consent of the partjee, the matter is taken up for hearing, finaiiy, 1, By this petitiom the petitioner impugns the order ciated 31—32008 (Atmexure .P/l ), passed by the respendent N0. 2,. whereby it has been directed to deduct a sum of Rs.4g590- as excess payment made to the petitioner, from, the pensionary benet’lte, 2, The brief facts: in netsheH, are that the petitioeer while working as Principal; Government Higher Secondary SehooL Dargaom Dietriet Durg§ retired on attaining the age of euperannuation 0o 313.2008. The petitioner received the impugned recovexy order dated 313.2008 (Amexure 13/1)” on 10—4-2008 iesued by the respondent No, 2, whereby it was directed to recover a mm of Rs, 4r590/— without affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. vxJ /:r @ W Leamed counsgl appearing for the etitionar Submits that the iswc p asto whether recovexy of axcess payment can be made without fonowing principles of natural justice is no Innger ms integrag the game haw bean settleii by the Supreme Cmlrt m the matter of Sahib Ram Vs. State afHanvana and atheml, and furthar fallowed by this ‘ Calm in the matter of Vidyadhar Tiwcm‘ Vs, The Stone ofChhatlisgaril éé Others? Learned counsel. for the respondents/State relies 0n. Rule 65 9f the Chhattisgarh Civil Services (Passion) Rules5 1976 (for shott ‘the Rates: 1976’) fer the purpoee of recovery and adjustment of Government (iues. Rule 65 of the Rates, 1976 reads as under: “Ruie 65 — Recovery and actjustment 0f Government dues:- (1) It ehaii be the duty of every retiring Gavernment servant to etear all Government dues befere the date of his retirement. (.2) Where a retiring Governmem servant does net clear the Gavemment dues and Such dues are ascertainabie:- (a) an equivalem cash deposit may be taken from him; or (b) out of the gretuity payabie to him, hie nominee or legai heir? an amount equal to that recoverable on account of ascertainable Government dees shall be deducted. Explaoation-l, The expreseiort ‘aseertetnahle Government dues’ includes balance of house buiiding or conveyance advance, arrears of rent and other charges pertaining to occupation of Government Aeeommodation, over-payment ot‘pay and allowances and arrears of‘ineome tax deductible at source under the Income Tax Act, W61” The contention ofthe petitioner that even for exercising power under Rule 65 ofthe Rules; 1976; basic principles ofnatnral justice and fair play in—aetion are required to be followed. In the oresent caset the State/authorities have not afforded any opportunity of hearing to tlte E 1995 Supp (1) Soc: 2n . 2 2006 (1) MPHT 105 (CG) 3 7t petitioner to put farward his case astn Why the daduction ii‘am the gratuity amonnt being exce3$ amaunt cannat be made, The contmltion of tha Ieamcd counsel for the petitioner meritg acceptance, This Comta in the case of Vidyedhar Tiwavri (eupra), has hem that The excess payment” if any; made to the petitimerg 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 stages directing recovery ofthe alleged exceSs amount 13mm the pensionary benetitsfgramity amoum of the petitioner will not be just and proper, In View of the foregoing, this petition is allowed in the terms of the order passed, in the caee ofVidyadhar 'l‘iwari (some) Let the impugned ietter dated 3l.—3-2008 (Annexure Pll) regarding recoveiy of amount from the gratuity and other dues of the petitioner on account of excess payment, is herehy quashed, The petitioner is entitled to full pen sionary benefits/gratuity amount without any deouction, However, it is open to the respondents to take recourse to Rule 65 ofthe Rules, 1976: if so adviseds in accordance with law; following basic principles ofnatural justice, No order asto costs, t , ‘Satish K.Agnihotri f ; Judge Sdf— raJu .w