6<P' i ^. ep m3'F ?S'5H s IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR W.P.(S.) N0. ^~^>^- /2009 PETITIONER: ^ Gularam Sarthi S/o SiturynS^^ Aged about 68 years, Retired Assistant Teacher, R/o Village Budiya, Post Tamnar, Block Tamnar, District Raigarh (C.G.) VERSUS RESPONDENTS ,^.z^' ^^-- ^ State of Chhattisgarh: Through The Secretary, Tribal Welfare Deparfaiient, D.K.S. Bhawan, Raipur (C.G.) N» The Joint Director Treasury Accountant and Pension Bilaspur, District Bilaspur (C.G.) Assistant Coniniissioner Tribal Welfare Department Raigarh District Raigarh (C.G.) Block Education Officer, Block Tamnar, District Raigarh (C.G.) WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA FOR ISSUANCE OF WRIT IN NATURE OF MANDAMUS CERTIORARY OR ANY OTHER WRIT OF LIKE NATURE ETC. The petitioner raost humbly and respectfully begs to submit as under : -V HiGH COURTOF CHHATTISGARH : BiLASPUR WR!T PETITSON (S) N0. 2337 OF 2009 PETITJONER Guiaram Sarthi ^ RESPONDENTS Versus State of Chhattisgarh & Others (Writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitutjon of India) Singie Bench : Hon'ble Shri Satish K. Agnihotn, J. Present:- Shri D.R. Patel, counsei for the petitioner. Shri Y.S. Thakur, Dy. A.G. for the State. 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. ORDER (ORAU (Pa&sed on this 10th day of September, 2009) Heard learned counset for the parlies. By this petition, the petitioner smpugns the order dated 31-5-2004 (Annexure P/2) passed by the respondent No.2, whereby a sum of Rs.35,505/- has been deducied hoiding It to be excess payment made to the petitjoner, from his retiral dues. Learned counse! appearing for the petitioner submits that the issue asto whelher recovery of excess payment can be made v^thout foiiowing principies of naturai justice is no tonger res integra, the same has been settied by the Supreme Court in Sahlb Ram v. State of Haryana and others^, and further foiiowed by this Court in Vidyadhar Tiwan v. The State of Clihattlsgarh & Other^ & Viaya Shankar Trwarl v. ofM.P, (Now State of Chhattisgarh) and othai/. In the snstant case, the impugned order has been passed without affording any Qpportunity of hearing to the petitioner. Learned counsei appearing for the State does not controvert the aJlegation that no opportunlty of hearing was afforded before the impugned orders were passed. Howeyer, tearned counsel relies on Rule 65 of the Chhattisgarh Civil Services (Pension) Ruies, 1976 (for short Ihe Rules, 1976?) for the purpose of recovery and adjustment of Government dues. The contention of the petitioner that even for exercisirsg power under Ruie 65 of the Rules, 1976, basic principies of natural justice and falr piay in action are required to be foitowed. irs the present case, the State/authorities have not afforded any opportunsty of hearlng to the 11995Supp(1)SCC20 2 2006(1)MPMT 105 (CG) 3 2006 (2) MPHT 31 (CG) '^ 3° Gowri petitioner to put forward his case asto why the deduction from the gratuity amount being excess amount cannot be made. The contention ofthe learned counse! for the petitloner merits acceptance. 6. This Court, in Wdyadhar Twari (supra), has heid that the excess payment, if any, made to the petitioner, he was not at fauit arsd t?ie amount received by him might have been used by adjusting himself accordingSy treatSng the same as his sa!ary. At this stage, directlng recovery of the alleged excess amount from the pensionary benefits/gratuity amount ofthe petitioner wili not bejyst and proper. 7, ln view of foregoing and as admitted by learned counse! appearing for the parties, this petition is aliowed in the terms of the order passed in Vldyadhar Twan (suwa) i.e. the Impugned order daled 31-5-2004 (Annexure P/2) deducting a sum of Rs.35,505/- from the reliral dues of the petitioner is hereby quashed, The petitioner is entitied to fuil pensionary benefgts/gratuity amount without any dedyctlon. if the said amount is aiready deducted from the gratutly, the same shail be payabie to the petitioner with simpie inter^t @ 6% per annum from the date it became due tiil the payment is made. However, it is open to the respondents to take recourse to Rule 65 of the Ryles, 1976, ?f so advised, in accordance with law, after foltowsng basic prindples of natural justice. No order asio costs. __-_ Sd/- SatishK.Agnihotri Judge