^SSSSi:SS3?^.. ^" ^ 'efitioner Resoondents HGH COUR1 TTi! ^^•?-;+ ^Vi ii. 'etioon(SS No. 8833 of 2007 Padman Ssnah Patel. ased a&out 53 years, son of Shri Shatrughan Lal Patel, occupation - Retired Head Master, Gcsvt Middie Sc'nooi - Devgar", Biock Tamnar, Distrsct Raigarh (CG), presently residing at viiiage & Post - Bhedv;an, Block & Tah. Sarangarh, Dsitrict - Raigarh (CG). Versus 1) State of Chhattisgarh.throuah Secretary, Department of Tribat We Dau Kalyan Singh Bhavran, ICG}. iis Raipur 2) The Commissioner, Trifaal WeiTare, D.K.S. Bhawan. Ral&ur (CG). 3) The Jolnt Director (Accounts, Treasurv & Pension) Bilaspur fCG'). 4) The Assistant Director, Tribal DeveSoprrsent, Raigarh (CG). 5) B!oc-k Education Cfficer (Tribat Wsfere Deptt), Block Tamnar, Dtett. Raigarh (Writ Petition under Articte 226 ofthsConsciution ofindia.) 3B: Hon'bie Mr. Satish K. Agnihotri, J. 'resent: Mr. Roop Naik, counsel for the petitioner. ?v!s. Sunita Jain, Panei Lav^yer for the StaK ORAL IPassed on this 10 cay c.f February, 201 Despite opportunity granted to the State to flls repiy, no r&piy has been fiisd. The matter is heard o" merit. 2) By Ihls petition, the petitioner has prayed for a suitabie wrtt or direction to quash the order dated 4-10-2006 (Annexure P-1) passed by the respondent No.4, directing for recovero of a sum of Rs, 74.110/- from the retirai dues ofthe petitioner, because this amount was paid in excess. •S,s:s!*sa!sa. !!5a'°4'^a ^i-ggs^^ ^'c^' %< ^:i~-.-"^ .'y t- 3) The brief facts, in nutsheti, are that the petltioner was initiaily aooointed as Lower Division Teacher in the resoondents department on 11- 1-1965. Thereafter the petitionsr was promotsd to the post of Head ?»1aster. The petitioner, whiie working as Head F»1aster, retired on attaining the age of superannuation from the service on 3G-7-2SXS8. After retirement the petitioner received a communication datsd 4-10-2008 (Annexure P/2), directing recovery of a sum of Rs.74,110i'- on account of excess payment made to the Detitioner. 4) The petitioner has fiied this petition praying thai the impugned order dated 4-10-2006 (Annexure P/1) dsducting a sum of Rs. 74.110/- from the pensionary benefits of the petitioner without affording an opportunity of hearing to put forward case of the petitioner, to the petittoner is ii!egai, arbitrary and unreasonabie. 5) The auestion hereln asto v»'hether recovery of amount from 'the retlred employes can be made without affording proper opportunlty of hearing to the petitioner, is no ionger tesjudicata and has been settied by dscisions ofthe Supreme Court in the matters of Shvam Ba&u Verms and others Vs. Union of india and others Sahib Ram Vs. State of Haryana and others and order dated 17-11-2005 passed by this Court in the matter of yi^^F^^igr T|\ft/3f| y3. Ths Ststs of ChhsttisQsrh and othsrs 6) This Court sn the case of Vjdyadhar Tiwari (supra), has heid that for the excess payment, if any, made to the petitloner, he was not at fauit and the amount recelved by him might have besn used by adjusting himseif accordingiy treating the same as his saiary. At this stage, dirscting recover/ of the alteged excess amount from the penslonary benefrts or the petitioner wiii not be iust snd proper. I(1994)2SCC521 '(lS95)Supp(l)SCC18 3(2006(1)MPHT(CG)105 ^ ^ ^t^s-^a-. ^ 1 ^"";6tJ \sss'y -3 J' 5) In viev; of the foregoing and as admittsd by iearned counsel appearing for both the parties, this petition Is ailowed in the terms of the order passed in the cass of Vidyadhar Tiwari (supra) i.e. the impugned ietter dated 4-10-2006 (Annexure P/1) is hereby quas'ned. The petitioner is entitled to fuil pensionary benefits/gratuity amount without any deduction. However, the respondents may take recourse to Ruie 65 of the Ruies, 1976, if so advjsed, in accordance with law snd basic orincioies of natural lustice. order asto costs. --—-— Sd/- Satish K.Agnihotri Judge /Q