J':'".^'= 4' ff' %; ;S^4- HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WRIT PETITION (S)No. 1722/2009 PETITIONER R.L. Sidar, S/o Late Lambodar Sidar, Aged about 64 years, retired as Assistant Teacher/superintendent office of Assistant Commissioner Triable > Welfare Development Department Collectorate Campus, Raigarh, District Raigarh (C.G.) Vs. RESPONDENTS 1 State of C.G. Through it's Secretary/Director Triable Welfare Development Department, D.K.S. Bhawan Mantralaya, Raipur (C.G.). 2 Joint Director, Divisional Officer, Treasuiy, Accounts & Pension, Raipur Division,Raipur (C.G.) 3 Assistant Commissioner, Triable Welfare Development Department, Collectorate Campus Raigarh District Raigarh (C.G.) WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA Appearance: Shri R.S. Patel, Counsel for the petitioner. Shri Yashwant Singh, Dy. Advocate General for the State on advance copy. ORALORDER (02.04.2009) SUNIL KUMAR SINHA, J. Heard. By way of this writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, fhe petitioner, who has retired from the post of Assistant Teacher/Superintendent from the O/o Assistant Commissioner, Tribal Development Department, Raigarh, has chatlenged the validity of order dated 28/1/2008 (Annexure P/l) and has also prayed for quashing the same, by which, a recovery of Rs.3,73,814/- has been directed against the petitioner. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the proposed recovery is because ofexcess payment made to the petitioner during the Writ Petition (S) No. 1722/2009 tenure of his service. He subniits that the issue as to whether recovery of excess payment can be made without following the principles of natural justice is no longer res integra. The matter has been settled by the Supreme Court in the matter of Sahib Ram. V. State of Haruana andothers. 1995 Sv.on f11 SCC 18, and further followed by this Court in the matter of Viduadhar Tiiuari V. The State of Chhattisaarh and Others^2006 (IJJ^HT^OSJCG) and Vidt/a Shanfear Tiwari V. State of SI.P. (Now State of Chhattisaarh) and others, 2006 12] MPHT 31 shyna A perusal of the impugned order would show that no opportunity of hearing was afforded to the petitioner before passing fhe said order of recovery. Leamed Dy. Advocate General for the State submits that Rule 65 of the Chhattisgarh Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1976 (for short 'the Rules, 1976') applies for the purpose of recovery and adjustment of Government dues, therefore, the proposed recovery was directed. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that even for exercising power under Rule 65 of the Rules, 1976, basic principles of natural justice and fair play in action are required to be followed. In the present case, the said authorities have not afforded any opportunity of hearing to the petitioner to put forward his case as to why deduction froin the pensionary benefits cannot be made. He also relies on the order dated 17.3.2009 passed by this Court in W.P.(S) No.5607/2008 (Annexure P/4). In view of the foregoing and the earlier order passed by this Court, this petition is allowed in terms of the order passed in the case of Viduadhar Tiwari fSuprei) as also the order passed in W.P.(S) No.5607/2008 (Annexure P/4) and the impugned order dated 28.1.2008 (Annexure P/l) regarding recovery of Rs. 3,73,814/- from the retiral dues of the petitioner is hereby quashed. The petitioner is entitled to full pensionary benefits/other ainounts without any deduction. However, it is open to the respondents to fake recourse of Rule 65 of the Rules, 1976, if so advised, in accordance with law, after following the basic principles of natural justice. No order as to costs. c/i/ Sunil Kumar Sinha Judge