"^ fc^' y\y H1GH COURT OF CMHATTI8GAM1 Al B1LASPUR PETITIONER RESPONDENTS WMT PETITION (S) No. ^25 of2008 L.R. Bhoi, son of lyiuniavore Ram Bhoi, aged about 64 years, retired Asstt. Teacher, residence of village Balajhar, Post Tamta, Tahisl Patthalgaon, District Jashpur, Chhattisgarh. VERSUS 1. State of Chliattisgarii Througfa Seeretary, Department ofTriabl Wettare, Dau Kalyan Singh Bhawan, Raipur Chhattisgarh. 2. The Commissioner, Tribal Wetfare, DKS Bhawan, Raipur, Chhattisgarh. 3. The Joint Director Treasury Accountant Treasury and Pension, Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh. 4. The Assistant Director, Tribal Development, Jashpur, Chhattisgarh. WRI'I PETmON UNDEK ARIICLE 226 OF THE ajNSllTUnON OF INDIA 8B: Hon'ble Shri Satish K. Aemhotri, J. Present: Shri C.J.K. Rao, Advocate for the petitioner. Smt. Smita Ghai, Panel Lawyer for the State. OKALOMDER (Passsd on 18th day ofOctober, 2008) V/ith the consent of learaed counsel appearing for tfie parties, the matter is heard 2) The petitioner was initially appointed as Asstt. Teacher on 09.02.68 in tte respondent department. Subsequently, the petitioner was given benefit ofpay scale. He retired from service on attaiiung the age of superannuation on 28.02.2006. The petitioner received a letter dated 07.03.2007 (Annexure P/l), directmg recovery of a sum of Rs. 30,974/- on account ofexcess payment made to the petitionw. 3) Leamed counsel appearing for the petttioner sutnmts fliat the petitioner was aot given any opportunity to explain about tiie paymeirt made to the petitioner. Thus, fhis order is vitiated for want of compliance of the principles of natural justice and \/' 3 2 E .sC \ ^ 3M fair play in-action. Leamed counsel further submits that there is no fault on Ihe part of the petitioner and the amount is paid to him in accordance with the pay scales, revised and tixed by the respondents from time to time. No reason has been assigned asto on which count the excess payment, tf' any, was made. The respondents cannot recover the amount, already paid to the petitioner, that too without following the prmciples ofnaturaljustice. 4) Leamed counsel q>pearing tbr the respondents/State submits that it is true that no show cause notice was given to Ifae petitioner. The petitioner was not called upon to submit his explanatieui for payment of alleged excess paymont and recovery thereafter. 5) The respondent authorities have not followed the {ainciples of natural justice and the impugned action has been taken without affording a»opportunity ofhearing to Ae petitioner. The practice ofpassing order involvn^ civil c<msequaices, wittout show cause notice or wifhout affording an opportunity, is condemned. Thus, this action of deducting Rs. 30.974/- fi-om retu-al dues is bad on account ofthe fact that the petitioner was not afforded any opportunity ofhearing before the impugaed svctwa was taken, also. 6) The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of SaMb Ram Vs. State of Haryana and othere in para 5 has held as under; "5. However, it is not on account of any misrepresentation made by the appellant that tiie baiefit of higher pay scale was given to him but by wrong construetion aiade by the Principal for which fte appellant cannot be held to be at fault. Under Ihe circumstances, the amount paid till date may not be recovered from the appellant" 7) The Hon'ble Supreme Court m the case of P. Tirisidas and others v. Govermnent ofA.P. and others?, observed that the benefit accroe4 earlier by way of ' 1995 Supp (I) SCC 20 2AIR200~3SC43 ^' v^- Sahii grant ofhigher pay or revised pay, cannot be taken away as the same is violative of Article 14 and 16 ofthe Constitution of India being arbitrary, unreasonable and expropriatory. 8) This Court, in fhe case of Vidyadhar Tiwari Vs. State ot' Chhattisgarh & others has held that for the excess payment, if any, made to the petitioner, he was not at tault and Ihe amount received by him might have beai used by adjusting liimself accordiugly treating the same as his salary. At fhis stage, directing recovery ofthe alleged excess amount fromthe pensionary benefits ofthe petitioner will not be just and proper. 9) In view of the reasons mentioned hereinabove, this petitian is allowed. The unpugned letter dated 07.03.2007 (Amiexure P/l) du-eetir^ recovery a sum of Rs. 30,974/- on account of excess payment made to the petitioner, is hereby quashed. The petitioner is entitled to fall pensionary benefits/gratuity amaunt without any deduction. H'the amount has been recovered, the petitioner is entitled to the said amount with interest at the rate of 6% per aanum. However, it is open to tfae respondents to take any step, if so advised, in accordax>ce with law following basic ?rinciples ofnaturaljustice. Sd/- Satish K. Agnihotri Judge ^ 200i5 (l)MPHT 103 (CO)