c^/^ c& IN THE HIGH COUJ?T OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR (CHHATTISGARHI WRIT PETITION fS) N0.^ " ' /2008 PETITIONER: ^ ^ ^... •f^ ••''C5-. off>" \* ^ Respondents GO^ ^w^ v> \ p:G- Shankar Sai Baj, son of Heera Sai Baj, aged about 72 years, retired Asst.Teacher, residence of village and Post Tamta, Tahsil Patthalgaon, Distrcit Jashpur, Chhattisgarh. versus 1. State of Chhattisgarh, Through Secretary, Department of Education, Dau Kalyan Singh Bhawan, Raipur, Chhattisgarh. 2. The Joint Director, Accounts Treasury and Pension, Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh. 3. District Treasury, Account, Jashpur, District Jashpur, Chhattisgarh. WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA l^ em n ^^ \'^\' HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH : BILASPUR WRIT PETITION (Sl N0.^23/2008 PETITIONER ShankarSai Baj Versus RESPONDENTS State of Chhattisgarh & ottiere 9/Vrit Petition under Article 226 ofthe Constifiition of India) Sinale Bench: Hon'ble Shri Satish K. Aanihotri. J. Present: - Shri C.J.K. Rao, counsel for the petitioner. Shri M.P.S. Bhatia, Deputy Govt. Advoeate for the Stats. ORAL ORDER (Passed on this 10"' day of September, 2009) Heard counsel for the parties. 1. By this petition, the petitioner impugns the order dated 28-04-1^7 (Annexure P/1) passed by the respondent No.2, whereby a sum of Rs.61,442/- has been deducted holding it to be excess payment made to the petitioner, from his retiral dues. 2. Shri Rao, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the issue astowhether 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 ando iers', and further followed by this Court in the matter of Vidyadhar T'mari v. The State of ChhaHisgarh & Ottwr^ and Vidya Shankar T'mari \i. State of M.P. (Now State of Chhaitisgarh) and others. In the instant case, the impugned order has been passed wittiout affording any opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. 3. Shri Bhatia, Depufy 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 Govemment dues. 11995Supp(l)SCC20 2 2006 (1) MPHT 105 (CG) '2006(2)MPHT3l(CG) 7 _;3SE»a-lt>, ..^''.....^h ^'' .^^^ -L 4. The contention of the petitioner that even for exereising 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 leamed counsel for the petitioner merits acceptance. 5. This Court, in the case of Vkiyadhar Tiwari fsupra), has held that 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 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 ttie parties, this petition 13 allowed in the terms of the order passed in the case of Vidyadiar Tiwari (supra) i.e. the impugned order dated 28-4-1997 (Annexure P/1) deducting a sum of Rs.61 ,4421- from the retiral dues of the petitloner is hereby quashed. The petitioner is entitled to full pensionary benefiis/gratuity amount without any deduction. Ifthe said amount is aiready deducted from the flratuity, the same shail be payable to the petitioner with simple interest @ 6% per annum from the date it became due till the payment is made. However, it is open to the respondents to take recourse to Ruie 65 of the Rules, 1976, if so advised, in accordance with law, after following basic principles of naturat justice. No order asto costs. Sd/- Satish K. Aghihotri Judge