<cv' WGHCOUOTOFCHHMTlS^GARK:Bli.ASPUR Writ Petition (Sl No. 4347 of 2008 Petitioner Krishna Lat Chouhan, S/o Late Bhoko Chouhan, aged about 66 years, R/o village . Pailpara Ward No.15, Sarangarh, Tahsil Sarangarh, Distt. Raigarh (CG). Respondents Versus 1) State of Chhattisgarh through the Secretary, School Education Department, D.K.S. Bhawan, Raipur, District Raipur (CG). 2) The Joint Director, Treasury Accountant and Pension, Bilaspur, Distriet Bilaspur (CG). 3) District Education OfRcer, Raigarh, District Raigarh (CG). 4) Btock Education Officer, Block Tamnar, Distiict Raigarh (CG). ^A/rit PetiUon under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.) Single Bench: Hon'bleMr. Satjsh K. Agnihotri, J. Present: Shri SanjayPatel, counset for the pentioner. SmtSmita Ghai, Panel Lawyerforthe State. ORAL ORDER (Passed on 8tt day of August,2008) The petitioner was appointed as an Assistant Teacher on 23-1-1963 in the respondents department. The petitioner retired from services on attaining the age of superannuation on 31 -10-2CU4. After his retirement, the petitioner received a letter dated 20-4-2005 (Annexure P/1) directing recovery of a sum of Rs.59,584/- on account of excess payment made to the petitioner. -^ 2) Learned counsel aDDearina for the Detitioner submite that the petitioner was not given any opportunity to explain his case. Thus, this order is vitiated for want of comptiance of the principles of natural justice and fair olav in-action. Leamed counsel further submitsthatthsre is no fault on the part of the petitioner and the amount is paid to him in accordance withthe pay scales, revised and flxed by the respondents from time to time.The respondents cannotrecover theamount, already paid 2-' ^ 1 ^;i ;; to the petitioner after his retirement, that too without foliowing the principtes ofnaturaljustice. 3) Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the respondente/State submits that it is true that no show cause notice was given to the petitioner. The communications made between the officers was endorsed to the petiUoner. The petitioner was not catled upon to submit his expianation for payment of alleged excess payment and reeovery thereafter. 4) The respondent authorities have not followed the principles of natural justice and the impugnecl action has been taken without affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. The practice of passing order invoMng civil consequences without show cause notice or wittiout affording anopportunity, is condemned. Thus, this action of deducting Rs.58,584/- from retirat dues is bad on account of the fact that the petiUoner was not afforded any opportunity of hearing before the impugned action was taken, aiso. ' 5) The Hon'ble Suoreme Court in the case of Sahib Ram Vs. Stateof Haryana and others in para 5 has held as under: "5. However, it is not on account of any misrepresentation made by ths appeilant that the benefrt of higher pay scaie was given to him but by wrong eonstrucBon made by the Principal forwhich the appellant cannot be heid to be at fault. Under the circumstances, tiie amount paid til! dat®may not be recovered from the appeltant." 6) The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of P. Tuisidas and others v. eovernment of A.P, and others , observed that Uie beneflt accrued eartler by way of grant of higher pay or revised pay, cannot be teken away as the same is violative of Articte 14 and 16 of the Constitution of india being arbitrary, unreasonable and expropriatory. 7) This Court, in the case of Vidyadhar Tiwari Vs. State of Chhattisgarh & others has^hetd thaf for the excess payment, if any, made to the petitioner, he was not at fauit and the amount received by him might have been used by adjusUng himself accordingly treating the same as Ws salary. At this stage, directing recoveryof the alleged excess amountfrom the pensionary benefits of the petitioner will not bejust and proper. 11995Supp(1)SCC20 2A!R2003SC43 32006(1)MPHT105(CG) Sl:;,:: :HHl wri ^ 8) In view of the reasons mentioned hereinabove, this petition Is allowed. The impugned tetter dated 20-4-2005 (Annexure P/1) directing recovery a sum of Rs.59,584/- on account of excess payment made to the petitioner, is hereby quashed. The petitioner is entitled to fuli pensionary benefits/gratuity amount without any deduction. tf 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 open to thejespondents to take reeourse to Rule 65 of the Chhattisgarh Civit Services (Pension) Rules, 1976, if so advised, in accordance wth law fotlowing basic principles of natural justice. No order asto coste. Sd/- Satish K. Agnihotri Judge ^