® THJB HKzH_COURT OP JUDICATU.RE OF CHHATnSGARK ATBII.ASPUR W.P.(S.) N0. -7Z>4^ /2Q09 PETmONER: SuregPrakashAhirS/oShri Bhagirathi Ahir, Aged about 60 years, Occupation : Peon, Posted at Govemnient Hi^her Secondary siiri.<^.>;.(..:.^s.^ri.-... Scfaool, Nandeli, Tahsil & District P.R.No. PretBBtml b»Sliri (feted^.....,i ^^^^................ Rai^arh(C.G.) VERSUS RESPONDENTS 1. / Stateof Chhattisgarh Through : The Secretaiy, Sehool Edueation Department D.K.S. Bhawan, Raipiu- (C.G,) 2.? The Joint Director Treasury Account and Pfinsion Bilaspur Division Bilaspur, (C.G.) 3. / The District Education O&cer, Raigarh, District Raigarh (C.G.) The Prineipal Gowemment Higher Secondary School, NandeK, Distriet Raigarh (C.G.) WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA FOR ISSUANCE OF WRIT IN NATURE OF MANDAMUS OERTIORARy OR ANY OTHER WRIT OF LIKE NATURE ETC. ^i%i^^^^@'g3^^^^£^§^^^^^^^^^S^^^^^^5S§^^^NkJB^r,K|^^^^^^^ ^ mOH COURT OF CaiHATHSGARH AT BILA8HJR WRTTPETmONfS-) No. 7849 of2009 PETmONER : Suraj PiakashAhir. VERSUS RESPONDEN'IS : State ofChhattisgarh&Others. WRIT PETmON UNDER ARTIGLE226 OFTHE CONSTmjnON OF BMDIA SB:Hon'Me8hriSa(is]iK.AadjhBtei.J. Present: SiiriD.R-Patel,AdvocatefQrthepetiti<»er. Shri N.N.Roy, Panel La^ffl'forflie State/respandente. ORAL<MU R (Rassedoa 18uldayof Jaauary,2010) 1. Withthecons»toftheparties,thetBaUerisheaRl.Gndly. 2. Leamed counselappearing forthe petition®sahBite tet v^ MnpugnedoFderdated 29.09.2009 (Annexure f/1) a sum afRs. 59,458A towar<te excess payment made to the petitioaer has fceen direeted to be recovered fi-omtihe salary aad aireais pflhe petitianer.iSairi Patel furtter submits that tfae punitive OTda- of recovay has been passed witfaeut affordu% an opportimity of hearu^ t6 the petitioner. The petftioner is still inservice. 3. Shri Patel fiuther submits that flie issue asto ^iefliCT lecovery of excess payment for no fautt ofthe employee ean be ma<te widiout followu^the principles ofnaturaljusticeistiolongery'es'in^ro. Thesan has been settled by H(Mi'UeSuprenieCoiirtmvarioi^deeisioDs(Seei^etf^&A(< Qeulire^c>thersvs. StatecfBifwrando^er^.T&Cw^^ the above decisions has passed several oideis, directiag I'eiuAd bfthe amount, if any, recovered fiwn Ihe employees, v/hese the empl<^ees were not given any<CT<Mtl"^to e^t^a^rtAe ex^sPa^en^ if any, made to fhem. 4. Leamed counsel appearu%fortiM State/req)onteits does aflldispute Ifae above suhmission made by leamed eounsel q>pearing fw the petitioner. Shri Roy lurdier submitsAat snee n6 q)portBnity cifhiearing I(2009)3SCC475 i ^% was afforded befiire pMsing the impugfled wder, Mbaty may be granted totiie respcmdent/State to take steps for reeovery of any excess amount atter following the due process oflaw and after srffordmg an opportunity ofhearing to the petitfoner. 5. It is a trite law that no order prejudieing flie interest ofan employee can be passed without affordmg aa opportuiMty oflKaring. It is not the case of respondeirts tiiat o{q)ortumty of hearing was afforded to the petitioner, andthe iwesent case is sueh whCTein notice ofhearing is to be dispensed wifh. 6. The Suprane Coiirt, in Kafasfhan StateRoad Trcmsport Corporatiem & another v. BalMuhmdBairwa (2) , observed as uncter: "3S. Any order p^sedin violation ofthep-inciples <rf natural justice save aad except certMn contmgencies of cases, would be a nuliity.In AJiAntulaytimsCowtbeld: (SCCp. 660, pa»55) "55. No preju^ce need be proved for eiiforciag tiie fundaniental ri^its. Violatfon of a fundamental ri^it itself rarieis the impugned aetion v<Md. So also the violati<m ofthe priiMaples of aatural justiee raiders Ihe actanullity." 47. The purpose of1faepriiM;iples ofmrturaljus&ce is prevention ofauscarriage ofjustice and henee the<Aservance thereofis Ifae praginaticrequuement of&ir play m actiML (SeeSawai Singh v. State af Rajasthan (md Narimier Mohcm Arya v. Ifnited IndialnsuranceCo. Ltd.). 7. Inviewofthe setdedpositi<moflawQnfhepoiitf,thepetitiondeserves to be and is allowed. Accordingly, tbe inyugied order dated 29.09^ (Annexure P/I), directmg recovery ofRs. 59,458/-, Qn awount ofexcess payment made to the petitioner, is herd)y quashed. If Ifae aarount has akeady been recovered, flie petitioner is entided to the said aaMuat wth interest at the rate of6% per annum, subject to verification offaets. However, liberty is reserved to the State/respondents to take any steps, ifso advised, in accordance vndi law fw recovay efGiwess payment No order asto costs. •«.— s Sd/- SatishK.Agmhotri Judge _ (2009) 4SCC 299