HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR ‘ WRIT PETITION (S) 2376 01‘2{)08 Smt‘ Premsundari Das W/o Shri Dharam Das, Aged about 63 years, Occupation 1: Upper Division Teacher (Retired) Naangar Nivas Nayamunda Ward, Jagdaipur, Fest Jagdalpur (Chilattisgax‘ll) VERSUS . State of Chhattisgarh Through : Secreiary Education 1 & Tribal WeE‘are Depaxtment, D.K.S. Bhawan, - Raipur (C.G.) ‘ 2. The Divisionai Joint Director (Treasury Pension & ' ‘ Accounts) Bastar Division (C.G.) WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA SB: Hon’ble Shri Satish K. Agnnmm. J. ‘ Present: iShri Ajay Shrivastava, Advocate for the petitioner. PETITIONER RESPONDENTS Shri Aj ay Dwivedi, Deputy Government Advocate for the State. ’ i i ORAL ORDER (Passed on‘—m"—‘— 28 day of April, - 2008) With the consent ofthe parties, the matter is taken up for hearing tinaiiy. 1. By this petition. the petitioner impugns the order dateéi 23.10.2007 passed by the respondent No. 2 (Annexure Pil) for recovery of a sum of Rs. 5 1.335/- item the retiral dues towards excess payment made to the petitioner on account of wrong fixation of salary ofthe petitioner. 2. The brief facts, in nutshell, are that the petitioner was working in the Education Department and she retired as Upper Division Teacher. Vide order dated 23.10.2007, issued by the respondent No. 2 (Annexure P/l) it was ordered to recover a sum of Rs. 5 1,335f- from the retiral dues ofthe petitioner. Being aggrieved, the petitioner has fried this petition praying that the impugwd order dated 23.10.2007 (AnneXure P/l) for recovery of a Sum of Rs. 51,335/- from the pensionary benefits, without affording an opportunity of hearing to put forward her case. is illegal, arbitrary and unreasonable. 4. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that there is no fault 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. The respondents cannot recover the amount, already paid to the petitioner after his retirement, that too without following the principles of natural justice. Learned counsel further M ~ submits that the petitioner does not want to press other reiiefs on merit, except that the amount which has already been paid to the petitioner cannot be recovered from the retiral dues/gratuity amount on account of excess payment made to the petitioner during that period without aEording an opportunity ofhearing. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the State submits that since the pay of the petitioner was fixed contrary to the provisions and on scrutiny, it was found that excess amount has been paid, the same can be recovered from the retirai beneiits/gratuity amount of the petitioner, even on retirement without affording an opportunity of hearing. The Supreme Court, in the case of Sahib Ram Vs. State ofHaIyana and othersl, 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 heid to be at fault. Under the circumstances the amount paid tiil date may not be recovered horn the appellan ." 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 of recovery and adjustment of Government dues. Rule 65 of the Rules, 1976 reads as under: “Rule 65 - Recovery and adjustment of Government dues:- (1) It shall be the duty of every retiring 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 aseertainable:- (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-1. The expression ‘ascertainable Government dues7 includes balance of house 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” V i Satish K. Agnihotri l Judge 3d]- t l t six 1 1 1995 Supp (1) sco 2o \