/" ?é‘é$8§¥&“ A....-....l Gag ( IN THE HON’BLE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISHGARH AT BILASPUR (C.G.) §§I§§£l£ g5 4??" %? g mum WPJ$N0. Qqvé 2010 Petitioner ’Eihari Lal Dewangan Aged 64 Year S/o Late Shri Asha Ram Dewangan Retired Head Master Govt. Primary School, Mathaldabari Block Dongargaon, District Rajnandgaon (C. G. ) VERSUS Respondents 1. The State Govt of Chhattishgarh, Through the Secretary, School Education Department, D.K.S. Bhavan, Raipur (C.G.) The Joint Director Kosh Lekha & Accounts, Ghadhi Chouk,Raipur (C.G.). 3. District Education Officer, District Rajnandgaon (C.G.) / 4. Block Education Officer, Dongargaon, District Rajnandgaon (C.G.) Writ getition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issue of writ of Mandamus/direction or any other appropriate writ. @ HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WRIT PETITION (S) No. 6906 of2Q10 PETITIONER : Bihari Lal Dewangan. VERSUS RESPONDENTS : The State Govt. of Chhattisgaxh & Others. WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTIONOF INDIA SB: Hon’ble Shri Satish K. A_gnihotr1,_J. Present: Shri Somkant Verma, Advocate for the petitioner. Shri Vivek Sharma, Panel Lawyer for the State/respondents. ORDER ORAL (Passed on 29 day of November, 2010) 1. The petitioner, while working as Head Master, in Government' Primary School, Mathaldabri, Dongargaon, District Rajnandgaon, retired from service on attaining the age of superannuation on 31.07.2009. Thereafter, a sum of Rs. 36,030/— was recovered from the retrial dues of the petitioner on account of excess payment made to the petitioner. Shri Verma, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was not given any opportunity to explain about the alleged excess p/yment made to hlm and the petltioner was directed to . depos1t the amount of Rs 36 030/- by the Distrlct Educatlon Officer Rajnandgaon. Thus, the action of the respondent authorities is vitiated for want of compliance of the principles of natural justice and fair play in action. He further submits that there is no fault on the part of the petitioner and the amount is paid to him in accordance with the pay scales, revised and fixed by the respondents from time to time. No \\‘;\ reason has been assigned asto on whfch count the excess payment, if / \ \\\ x? any was made. The respondents cannot recover the amount, already paid to the petitioner, after his retirement, and that too, Without following the principles of natural justice. 3. Shri Vivek Sharma, learned Panel Lawyer appearing for the State/respondents submits that it is not clear from the pleadings asto whether or not, any show cause notice or opportunity of hearing Was afforded to the petitioner before the recovery of excess payment was made. 4. The issue asto whether recovery of excess payment can be made without following principles of natural justice is no longer res integra, the same has been settled by the Supreme Court in the matter of Sahib Ram v. State of Haryana and others], and further followed by this Court in the matter of Vidyadhar Tiwari v. The State of Chhattisgarh & Othersz and Vidya Shankar Tiwari v. State ofMP. (Now State of Chhattisgarh) and others3 and thereaher followed in several decisions. 5. The Supreme Court, in P.Tulsia’as & Others v. Government ofA.P. & 0thers4, observed that the benefit accrued earlier by way of grant of higher pay or revised pay, cannot be taken away as the same is violative of Article ,lgl,;and 16 of the Constitution of India being arbitrary, unreasonable and expropriatory. 6. In view of the foregoing and as admitted by learned counsel appearing for the parties, this petition is disposed of in the terms of the order 1 1995 Supp(1) scc 18 2 2006 (1) MPHT 105 (CG) 3 2006 (2) MPHT 31 (CG) 4 AIR 2003 sc 43 7? passed in the case of Vidyadhar Tiwarz'z. The respondent authorities are directed to refund the amount of Rs. 3603 0/- to the petitioner. 7. However, it is open to the respondents to take recourse to Rule 65 of the Chhattisgarh Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1976, if so advised, after following basic principles of natural justice. It is further made clear that in the event before recovery of the alleged excess payment was made, a show cause notice was issued and reply was tiled by the petitioner to the same, may not be treated to be covered by the decision of this Court in Vidyadhar Tz'wariz. in accordance with law, the case of the petitioner _ . Sd/— Satish K. Agnihotri? Judge 3 Amit