•^...^w^as..^^ HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISQARW: BILASPUR Writ Petition (S) No. 4978 of 2808 Petitioner Qhanshyam Singh Thakur, Sjfo. Late Shri Latel Singh Thakur. aged about 63 years, retired Headmaster, Govt. Primary School, Kosalnar, BlocR Narayanpur, R/o. Vitiage Sambafpur, ! Post OfRce & Tahsil & Distt. Dhamtari (CG). Versus 1) State of C.G. through its Secrotary Tribal Wetfare Department, D.K.S. Bhawan, Mantralaya, Raipur (OG). 2) Joint Director, Dh/isional ©ffice Treasury, Accounts and Pensions, Bastar Division, Jagdalpur Dist. Bastar 3) The Assistant Commissioner, Tribsrt Welfare Department, Jagdaipur, Distt. Jagdalpur (CG). 4) The Btock Education Officer, Narayanpur, Tahsil & Dist. Narayanpur Resoondents (Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution ©fIndia.) Single Bench : Hon'ble Mr. Satish K. Agnihotri, J. Present: Shri R.S.PateI, cour^el for the petitioner. Shri Y.S. Thakur, Dy. Advocate ©eneratforthe Siate. ORAL ORDBR (Passed on this 8th day of September, 2008) With the consent of learned counsel app^ring for the pQrtios, the matter is heard finaliy. 2) The petitioner working s© Headmaster, Govt. Primary School, Kosalnar, Block Narayanpur in the Tribal Werffare Department, retired from services on attaining the age of superannuation on 31-10-2007. After his retirement, the petitioner recelved a letter dated 20-12»20(y7(Annexure P/1), directing recovery of a sum of Rs.34,553/" on account of exeess payment made to the petitioner. ^ 3) Learned counsef appearing for tfie petitjoner submits that the petitioner was not given any opportunity to explain about ttie payment made to the petitioner. Thus, this order is vitiated tor want of complian^t of the principles of natural justice and fair ptay in-acfion. Learned counsel further submits that there is no fault on ttie part of the petitioner and the amour^ is paid to him in accordance with the pay scates, revised and fixed by ttie respondents from time to time. No reason has beeii assigned asto on whioh count the excess payment, if any, was macte. The respondente cannot recover the amount, already paid to the petitioner after his retirement, that too without following the principles of natural justice, 4) Learned counsel appearing for the respondente/Stete submite that tt is true that no show cause notice was given to the petitioner- The petitioner was not called upon to submit his explanation for payment of alJeged excess payment and recovery thereafter. 5) The respondent authorities have not followed the principtes of naturai justice and the impugned action has been teken without affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner- The practice of passlng order involving dvil consequences, without show cause notice or without affording an opportunity, Ss condemned. Thus, this action of deducting Rs.34,%3/- from retiral dues is bad on account of the fact that the petftioner was not afforcied any opportunity of hearing before the impugned action was taken, also. 6) The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Sahib Ram Vs. State of Haryana and others1 in para 5 has held as under: "5. However, it is not on account of any misrepresentatjon made by the appetlant that the benefrt of higher pay scale was given to him but by wrong consfruction made by the Principat for which the appetlant cannot be hetd to be at fauit. Under the circumstances, the amount paid tl{! date may not be recovered from the appeilant." 7) The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of P. Tulsidas and ottiers v. Government of A.P. and others2, observed that the beneflt accrued eariier by way of grant of higher pay or revised pay, cannot be taken away as the 11995 8upp(1)8cc 20 2AIR2Q03SC43 !^38i^ "T'^"' •^g"SK -© Raju same is vtolative of Articte 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India being arbitrary, unreasonable and expropnatory. 8) This Court, in the case of Vidyadhar Tiwari Vs. State of Chhattisgarh & others3 has he(d 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 aileged excess araount from the pensionary benefits ofthe petitionerwill not bejust and proper. 9) In view of the reasons mentioned hereinabove, this petitton is allowed. The impugned letter dated 20-12-2037 (Annexure P/1) directing recovery a sum of Rs. 34,553/- on account of excess payment made to the petltioner, is hereby quashed. The petitioner Ss entitled to futl pensionary benefrts/gratuity amount without any deduction. If the amount has been recovered, ttie petitioner is entitled to the said amount with interest at the rate of 6% per annum. However, it is open to the respondents to take recourse to Ruie 65 of the Chhattisgarh Civil Services (Pension) Rutes, 1978, if so advised, in accordance with iaw following basic principtes of natural justice. Noorder astocosts. ——^— Sd/- Satish K. Agnihotri Judge 2006 (DMPHT 105 (CG)