1 : 'rt: ^ •lilii.iljilJ.tlUI HIGKCOURT OF CHHAniSGARH AT BILASPUR !T PETIT10N fS) No. 3013 of 2008 &ETiTiQNER RESPONDENTS IT PETJT! about 64 years, Retired Head Master, R/o wliage Kaseru, Biock Gariyaband, District Raipur(C.G.) VERSUS 1. State of Chhattisgarh Through ths Secretary, Department pf Edu^tion, D.K.S. Bhawan, Raipur(C.G.) 2. The Accountant Generai of C.G. District Raipur (C.G.) 3. The Assistant Commlssioner, Biock Gariyaband, DistrictRaipur(C.G.) 4. The Biock Education Officer, Trifc>a! Development !pck OfficeGariyaband, District Raipur(C.G.) LARTICLE 226/227 OF THE CONSTITUTiON OF WDU il F.S.Khare, Shri Pankaj ShrivastaTO; Pane! Lawyer for the State / respondsnt N0.1,3 and 4. Ms. Sharmila Singhai, Advocate forthe respondent No. 2. (PassSd on 19th dayof 1. With the consentof the parties, the matter is heard finaiiy. lis petition, the petitioner has prayed for a suitabie writ order dated 12.09.2006 (Annexure P/l) passed by the No. 2 directingfQr the reUrai dues of the petltioner, owingto '1. Ai I® 3, Shri Khare, learned the issue asto whether recovery of excess payment can be made the same has been settied by the Supreme Court in the mafter of SahibRam v. State ofHaryanaandoffiers1, and furtherfoiiowed laythis Court in the matter of Wdysdftar Tfwariv. The Stste of ChhattSsgarh & instant case, the impugned order ha^ opportunity of hearing ti)i[ th^ 11998Supp(l)SCC20 •' 2006 (t) MPHT 105 (CQ) 3 2006 (2)MPMT 31 (CG) 4. Shri L. of hearing was atforded before However, he relies on Rule 65 of Chhattisgarh Civil Services (Psnslon) Rules, 1976 (for short the Ri 3') <,; .^it ^iai-ul^^.^Juwi contentlon of the petitioner that uie 65 ot the Rules, 1976, basic ay in actionare required to be fo :ats/authorities have not afforded f&r exercising pow< ®of natural justice Eratuitva 6. This Court, in t'ne case of Vicfyadhar Tf'wari (supra), has heid that the excess payment, if any, made to the petitioner, he was not at fault and /ed by him mtght h< treating the same ciirecting recovery of the aileged excess 'G^ benefits/gratuity a? iwofthefores Ehe parties, this petition is allowed in in the case of Vidyadhar Tf'wari (supra) I. .2.09.2006 (Annexure P/i) regardinj retiral dues of the Detltioner is herebv sntitled to fuli pensionary benefits/gratuity amount without any (3/- iduction. The amount so P/i) be paid to the petitloner with 6% simple innum. However, it is open to the respondents to take iuis 65 of the Rules, 1976, 'rf so advised, in accordance wii aliovking basic principies of natural justice. No order asto cQsts SdA Satish K; Agnihotri Judge '