HIGH COURT OF CHHATTxSGARH agr MLASPUR Wgggggggmg) No. 2938 of 200§ [oytw PETITIONER : Azimuddin Shekh, S/o Shri Shakjsruddin Shekh, ' aged about 62 years, Retired Lecturer, R/o 12/40, Samta Colony, Talapam, Bilaspur, District Bilaspur (CG). VERSUS RESPONDENTS : l. State of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Education Department, DKS Bhawan, Raipur (CG) - 2. Joint Director Treasury, Account & Pension, Bilasp ur Division, District Bilaspur (CG). 3. District Education Officer, Bilaspur, District Bilaspur (CG). 4. Principal, Surajmal Higher Secondary School, Bilha, District Bilaspur (CG). (WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA) (SB: Hon‘ble Mr. Satish K. Agnihotri, J.) .. Present : Shn' Kunal Das, Advocate for the petitioner. Ms. Sunita Jain, Panel Lawyer for the State/respondents'. ORAL ORDER (Passed on 68‘” day ofJuly, 2008) With the consent ofthe parties, the matter is taken up for hearing, finally. .1. , By this petition, the petitioner seeks a writ for quashing the order dated 01.04.08 (Annexure P/2), passed by the respondent No. 02, whereby. recovery of a sum of Rs. 52,614/- was ordered. 2. The brief facts, in nutshell, are that the petitioner while working as Lecturer, Surajmal Government Higher Secondary School, Bilha, District Bilaspur, retired on 31.03.2008 on attaining the age of superannuation. Thereafter, the petitioner received the impugned recovery order dated ()l .0408 (Annexure P/2), issued by the respondent N0. 2, whereby, the District Treasury Officer was directed to recover a sum of Rs. 52,614/— on account of excess payment made to the petitioner. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the issue asto whether recovery of excess payment can be made without fellowing principles ofnatural justice is no longer res integra, the same has been settled by the Supreme Court in the matter ofShyam Babu Vei'ma mid others Vs. Union oflndz'a and other], Sahib Ram Vs. State ofHaryana and others; and further followed by this Court in the matter of Vimzadhar Tiwarz' Vs. The State ofChhaftisgarh & Otherf, holding that if any benefit or excess payment has been made to the employee for no fault ofthe employee, the same is not recoverable. Learned counsel for the respondents/State relies on Rule 65 of the Chhattisgarh Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1976 (for short ‘the Rules, 1976’) for the purpose ofrecovery and adjustment of Government dues. Rule 65 ofthe Rules, 1976 reads as under: “Rule 65 - Recovery and adjustment of Government dues:- (1) It shall be the duty of evexy retin'ng Government servant to clear all Government dues before the date of his retirement. (2) Where a retiring Government servant does not clear the Government dues and such dues are ascertainable:- (a) an equivalent cash deposit may be taken from him; or (b) out of the gratuity payable to him, his nominee or legal heir, an amount equal to that recoverable on account of ascertainable Government dues shall be deducted. Explanation-l. The expression ‘ascertainable Government dues’ includes balance ofhouse building or conveyance advance, arrears of rent and other charges pertaining to occupation of Government Accommodation, over-payment of pay and allowances and arrears of income tax deductible at source under the Income Tax Act, 1961” 5. The contention of the petitioner 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 ‘ 1994 (2) soc 521. 2 r995 Supp (1) SCC 20 ‘ 3 '2006 (1) MPHT 105 (CG) l,lmnwn 0?? é State/authon'ties have not afforded any opportunity of hearing to the petitioncr to put forward his case asto why the deduction from the gratuity amount baing excess amount cannot be made. The contention ofthe learned counsel for the petitioner merits acceptance. The respondents/State, submits that no notice is necessary before making recovery of the excess payment which is not established asto whether excess payment has been made or not. Submission of learned counsel for the State/respondents is contrary to the well establisheti dictum laid down by the Supreme Court in the matter of Sahib Ram (Supra). In view of the foregoing, this petition is allowed in the terms of the order passed in the case of Vidyadhar Tiwari (supra) i.e. the impugned letter ’dated 01.04.08 (Annexure P/2) regarding recovery of amount from the gratuity and other dues of the petitioner on account of excess payment, is hereby quashed. The petitioner is entitled to full pensionary benefits/gratuity amount without any deduction: However, it is open to the respondents to take recourse to Rule 6S ofthe Rules, 1976, if so advised, in accordance with law and basic principles of natural justice. No order asto costs. Sd/— A" Satish K. Agnihotri Sahu Judge