,^\. ^^••^! y..--^^^^...^' ^••'•"'^y\'^.^'" ^ ..-::>^A? ^\^--' ^^)®© y ^TN THE HIGH COURT OF CHrfATTISGARH JUDICATURE AT BILASPUR fC.G.Y W.P.(S) N0., >7 /2008 t J'agannath Singh Chouhan, S/o- Shri Pancham Smgh Chouhan, Aged about 64 years, R/o- Rajapara, Kanker, Distt-Kanker, Retired Head Master, Primary School-Petoli, Distt. Kanker, Chhattisgarh. VERSUS PETITIONER I. State of Chhattisgarh, Through-Secretary, Department of Schedule Caste Development, D.K.S. Bhawan, M^aiitraSaya, Raipur, Chhattisgarh. 2. Joint Director, Treasury, Account and Pension, Baster Division, Jagdalpur, Chhattisgarh. RESPONDENTS s\^ WRIT PETITiON UNDER ARTICLE 226/227 OF THE- ^,^| CQNSTITUTION OF INDIA ^fet^^r HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH : BILASPUR WRIT PETITION (S\ N0.5207/2008 PETITIONER Jagannath Singh Chouhan Versus RESPONDENTS Stete of Chhattisgarh & another (VVrit Petition under Article 226/227 ofthe Constitutjon of India) Sinale Bench: Hon'ble Shri Satish K. Aanihotri. J. Present: - Shri Pankaj Shrivastava, counsel for the petitioner. Shri M.P.S. Bhatia, Deputy Govt. Advocate for the State. ORAL ORDER (Passed on this 10th day of September, 2009) Heard counsel forthe parties. 1. By this petition. the petitioner impugns the order dated 22-02-2007 (Annexure P/1) passed by the respondent No.2, whereby a sum of Rs.37,594/- has been deducted holding it to be excess payment made to the petitioner, from hjs retiral dues. hl^lNI^NN^ 2. Shri Shrivastava, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that 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 oihers1, and further followed by this Court in the matter of Vidyadhar Tiwari v. The State of ChhaHisgarh & Ofhers2 and Vidya Shankar Twari v. Siate of M.P. (Mow Stete of Chhsttisgaif)) snd others3. In tho instant cas©,the impugned order has beon passed without affording any opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. 3. Shri Bhatia. Deputy Govt. Advocate does not controvert the allegation that no opportunity of hearing was afforded before the impugned orders were passed. However, he relies on Rule 65 of the Chhattisgarh Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1976 (for short 'the Rules, 1976') for the purpose of recovery and adjustment of Governmentdues. 11995 Supp (l) SCC 20 2 2006 (1) MPHT 105 (CG) 3 2006 (2)MP1TT 31(00) .^^••^ ^ 4. The contention of the petitioner that even for exercising power under Rule 65 of the Rules. 1976, basic prindples of natural justice and fair play in action are required to be followed. In the present case, the State/authorities have not afforded any opportunity of hearing to the petitioner to put forward his case asto why the deduction from the gratuity amount being excess amount cannot be made. The contention ofthe learned counsel for the petitioner merits acceptance. 5. This Court, in the case of Vidyadhar Tiwari (supra), has held that the excess payment, if any, made to the petitioner, he was not atfault and the amount received by him might have been used by adjusting himself accordingly treatinQ the same as his salary. At this stage. directing recovery of the alleged excess amount from the pensionary benefits/gratuity amount of the petitioner will not be just and proper. 6. In view of the foregoing and as admitted by learned counsel appearing for the parties, this petition is allowed in the terms of the order passed in the case of VidyacKiar Tswari (supra) i.e. the impugned order dated 22-02-2007 (Annexure P/1) deducting a sum of Rs.37,594/- from the retiral dues of the petitioner is hereby quashed. The petitioner js entitled to full pensionary benefits/gratuity amount without any deduction. If the said amount is already deducted from the gratuity, the same shall be payable to the petitioner with simple interest @ 6% per annum from the date jt became due till the payment is made. However. it is open to the respondents to take recourse to Rule 65 ofthe Rules. 1976. if so advised, in accordance with law, after following basic principles of natural justice. No order asto costs. _ Sd/- Satish K. Agnihotri Judge ^v^-