HIGH COURT OF GHHATTISGARH: BILASPUR Writ Petition (S) No. 5046 of 2008 Bharat Lal Pandev, son of Sukhi Ram Pandey, aged about 66 yeaars, Retired Lecturar, Govt. Higher Secondary School, Prem Nagar. District Sarguja, residence of viilage and post Navagarh, Via Shivrinarayan, District Jamgir— Champa, Chhattisgarh. Petitioner Versus 1) State of Chhattisgarh, through Secretary, Department of Tribe! Welfare, Dau Kaiyan Singh Bhawan, Reipur, Chhattisgarh. Respondents 2) Commissioner, Tribe! Welfare, D.K.S. Bhawan, Raipur, Chhattisgarh. 3) The Joint Director, Aocounts‘ Treasury and Pension. Bi'laspur. Chhattisgarh. 4) District Accounts Officer, Ambikapur, Sarguja, Chhattisgarh. {Writ Petition under Articie 226 of the Constitution of indie.) Single Bench : Hon’ble Mr. Satish K. Agnihotri, J. Present: Shri C.J.K. Rao and Shri Dharmesh Shrivastava, counsei for the petitioner. Shri MRS. Bhatia, Dy. Govt. Advocate for the State. ORAL ORDER {Passed on 11‘” day cf September, was} With the consent of learned counsel appearing for the parties, the matter is heard finally. 2) The petitioner was appointed as an Assistant Teacher on 21 -9-1 961 in the respondents department. The petitioner retired from services on attaining the age of superannuation on 29.2-2004. After his retirement, the petitioner received a letter dated 15-1 0-2004 (Annexure P11), directing recovery of a sum of Rs.97,888i— on account of excess payment made to the petitioner. 3) Learned counsei appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was not given any opportunity to explain about the payment made to the petitioner. Thus, this order is vitiated tom-rant of compliance of the principles of nature! justice and fair piay in-ection. Learned counsel further submits that there is no fauit on the part of the petitioner and the amount is paid to him in accordance with the pay scales, revised and fixed by the respondents from time to time. No reason has been assigned asto on which count the excess payment, if any, was made. The respondents cannot recover the amount, already paid to the petitioner after his retirement, that too without foiiowing the principies of naturai justice. 4) Learned counset appearing for the respondents/State submits that it is ttue that no show cause notice was given to the petittoner. The petitioner was not caiied upon to submit his expianation for payment of aiieged excess payment and recovery thereafter. 5) The respondent authorities have not followed the principles of natural justice and the impugned action has been taken without affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. The practice of passing order involving civil consequences, without show cause notice or without affording an opportunity, is condemned. Thus, this action of deducting Rs.97,888/— from retiral dues is bad on account of the fact that the pet'nioner was not afforded any opportunity of hearing before the impugned action was taken, also. 6) The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Sahib Ram Vs. State of Haryana and others‘ in para 5 has held as under: “5. However, it is not on account of any misrepresentation made by the appellant that the benefit of higher pay scale was given to him but by wrong construction made by the Principal for which the appellant cannot be held to be at fault. Under the circumstances, the amount paid til! date may not be recovered from the appeiiant.” 7) The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of P. Tulsidas and others v. Government of A.P. and othersz, observed that the benefit accrued eariier by way of grant of higher pay or revised pay, cannot be taken away as the same is vioiative of Articie 14 and 16 of the Constitution of lndia being arbitrary. unreasonabie and expropriatory. 8) This Court, in the case of Vidyadhar Tiwari Vs. State of Chhattisgarh & otherss has held that for the excess payment, if any, made to the petitioner, he was not at fauit and the amount received by him might i 1995 Supp (1) soc 2o 2 Ain 2003 so 43 3 2006 (1) MPHT 105 (cc) 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 benefns of the petitioner win not be just and proper. 9) In View of the reasons mentioned hereinabove, this petition is allowed. The impugned ietter dated 15-1 0—2004 (Annexure P/1) directing recovery a sum of Rs.97,8881— on account of excess payment made to the petitioner, is hereby quashed. The petitioner is entitled to fut! pensionary benefitsigratuity amount without any deduction. lf the amount has been recovered, the petitioner is entitled to the said amount with interest at the rate of 6% per annum. However. it is open to the respondents to take recourse to Ruie 65 of the Chhattisgarh Civil services (Pension} Rules,.1976, if so advised, in accordance with law following basic principies of natural justice. No order asto costs. Satish K. Agnihotri ‘< Judge l Sdl-