^- ^ HIGH COURT OF CHHATTSSGARH: BILASPUR WR|TPETITIPN(S1NQ^48410F200S PETITiONER Gyan Chand Diliu, S/o Late Shri Diiiu, aged about 66 years, Retired Lecturer, Physical Coliege, Pendra, R/o village iazarpara, Karai Road (Kota), District Biiaspur (CG). Versus IT! 1. State of Chhattisgarh, through the Accountant Gsneral, Department of Provident Fpnd, Accounts & Pension, DKS Bhawan, Raipur (CG). 2. Ths Joint Director, Department of 3. The District Education Officer, Biiaspur (CG). 4. The Principal, Government Woman Physteai Educstion Coiiege, Pendra, District Bilaspur (CG). petition under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of india) Singie Bench : Hon'ble Shri Satish K. Agnihotri, J. Present :• Mr. Ashok Soni, counsel for the petitioner. Nis. Smita Ghai, Panel Lawyer for the State. 2. 3. (Passed on this 8tBdayof May, 2009) 3y this petition, the petitiQner impugns the order dated 28-2-2006 (Annexure P/4), whereby a sum of Rs.55,158/- has been directed to be deducted from the retriai dues of the petitioner. The indisputable facts, in the present case, are that inttially the petltioner was appoinied as Teacher (PTI). The petltioner obtained diploma in Physicai Education Exammation, on his own expenses, which is squivaient So B.Ed./D.Ed. Accordingly, the petitioner was granted two Increments, hov/ever. at the time of retirement of the Detitioner an amount of Rs.55,158/- was dedud:ed from the gratuity amount of the petitioner. Thus, this petition. Noilce was issued bv this Court in presence of the leamed State counsel bv order dated 7-9-2006. Four weeks time, on request of the learned State counse!, was granted to fiie ^o 5. 6. reply. Even afterlapse of more than 2%years, the respondent authorrties have not fiied any repiy. It appears that the respondents have nothing to say in the matter. The question of iaw involved in the present petition asto whether recovery of excess paymentor any payment made during the service time of the empioyee can be made without affording an opportunity of hearing to the retired employee has aiready come into consideration of this Court in Amreek Singh Garewal vs. State of Chhattisgarh & Others anti in other matters. The petitioner has fiied this petit'ion praying that the impugned .order dated 28-2-20)6 (Annexure P/4) deducting a sum of Rs.55,158/- from the penslonary benefits of She petitioner without affordlng an opportunity of hearing to put forward his case is iilegai, arbitrary and unreasonable. Learned counse! appearing for the petitioner submits that the case of the petitioner is squareiy covered by the decision of this Court in Vidyadhar Tiwari (supra). Learned counsei further submits that this petltton may be disposed of in the same terms. Per contra, Ms. Ghai, tearned Panei Lawyer appearing forthe State/respondents in support of the impugned order submits that the amount paid to the petitioner was in excess and, as such, the petitioner has no right So retain the same and in such a situation it is not necessary to issue a shov»- cause netice before passing the order of recovery/deductjon from the pensionary benefits. have heard leamed counsel appearing for She parties, perused the ptoadings and the documents appended The Hon'ble SuDreme Court in Sahib Ram v. Haryana and others In para 5 has held as under ; "5. However, st is not on account of any mlsrepresentatjon made by the appeliant that the benefit of higher pay scaie was given to him but by wrong construcfion made by the Principai for which the appellant cannot be heid to be at fault. Under the cireumsfancss, the amount paid till date may not be recovered froni the appeiiant." -i ,*,— ; WP No.5084 of 2004 (27-3-2008) 21995Supp(1)SCC20 10. 13. ^\ The Hon'ble Suoreme Court in P. Tulsidas and others v. Government of A.P. and others , observed that tte benefit accrued eariier by way of grant of higher pay or revised pay, cannot be taken away as the same is violstive of Articie 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India being arbitrar/, unreasonable and expropriatory. This Court, in Vidyadhar Tiwari v. State of Chhattisgarh & oUiers has held that for the excess payment, if any, made to the petitioner. he was not at fauit and the amount rsceived by him might have been used by adjusting himself accordingiy treating the same as his salary. At this stage, directing recovery of the alieged excess amount from the pensionary bsnefite of the petitioner will not be just and proper. Leamed counsei appearing for the petitioner submits that the case of the petitioner is squarely covered by e decision of this CourS in Vldyadhar Tiwari (supra). Learned counse! further submits that this petition may be disposed of in the same terms. Learned counsei appesring for {he State/respondents does not dispute the submissions made by iearnsd counsei appearing for fte petitioner and has no objection, if this petition is disposed of in the same terms. The petition is sccordingiy ailowed 'in the same terms i.e., the impugned order dated 28-2-2006 (Annexure PM) directing recovery of the amount ailegediy paid to the petitioner in excess, is hereby quashed. The petitioner is entitled to fuii pensionary beneflts without any deduction. The amount so deducted be paid to the petitioner with simple interest. However, liberty is reserved to the respondente, if so advised, to take appropriate steps after compfying with the principies of natural justice in accordance with Ruie 65 of ttie Chhattisgarh Civii Serv'ices (Pension) Ruies, 1 976. No order asto eosts. Sd/- Satish K. Agnihotri Judge AIR 2003 SC 43 2006 (1)MPHT 105 (C-G)