,gS3S3', WRJT PETITION (S) No. 4372 of200? Sanat Ram Sidar S/o Late Ram Smsh Sidar, Aged about 66 years, R/o Village Raipara Post: Saaikera, Block : Tanmar, Distt. Raigarh (C.G.) iXi-?^r1^T-~a : 'Ilie Secretar;/, Tribal WeH'are Department, D.K.LS. Bhawaii, Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.) 2. Tlie Joint Director, Trsasuty, Accouataiit aiid Pension. Biiaspur, District Biiaspur (C.G.) T'. Department, RaiE;arh, District Raigarh ('C.G.') 4. Blo WR1T PETITION UNDER AR'IICLE 226 OF THE CGNSTITUI'ION OF LNDIA n >hri Saniav Patel, Advocate for the petitioner. iliri Arun Sao, Govermneat Advocate for the State/respondents. (Passed on~Utrda^d~^ugust, 2008) With the consent ofthe parties, the matter is taken up for hearing fmally. The petitioner was appointed as an /^ssistant Teacher on 30.07.1962 m the respondents departiTie.nt. Tlie petitioner retired from services on attainins the age letter dated 27.09.2.004 CAnnexure P/l) directing recoven? a sum of Rs.35,671/- on account ofexcess pa.yment made to the petitioner. 2) Leamed counsel appearmg for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was not given any opportunily to explain the payment made to the pstitioner. Thus, this order is vitiated for want ofcompliance oftbe principles ofnaturaljustice and fair p!av m-action. Leamed counsel furfher submits that there is no fault on the part ofthe petitioner and the amount is paid to him.in. aceordance with the pay scales, revised and fixed by the respondents from time to time. Tbe respondents J-/ camiot recover the amount, already paid to the petitioaer after his retirement, that too without foll 3) Per. couiisel appearing for the respondents/State submits that it is tme that 110 show cause notice communications made. between ths officers was eEidorsed to fhe petitioner. Tlie petitioner was not called upon to submit 1f»s explanation for paymest of alleged excess pa}"ment and recovery thereafter 4) The respondent-aufhorities have not foliowed 1,'iie principles of aiatural afibrding of heariag to Ihe petitioner. The practice of passiag order involving civil , 1S conde.mned. 'Ilius. fhis aetion ofdeducting Rs.35,671/- from retiral dues is bad oa account ofthe fart'lhat the petitioner was aot afforded any opportunity ofhearing before the ijnpuened action was taken- also. 5V The Hon'ble Supreme Court. inthe case ofSahibRam Va. State ofHaryana and others in para 5 has held as under: "5. However, it is not on account ofany misrqsresentation made by the appellait that the betiefit ofhigher pay scale was eiven to him but bv 'wrone.construction made bv 'the Principal for which fhe appe.llant cannot be held to be at lault. Under tns circumstances, the amount paid till date may aot be recova-ed from tlie appe3!ant." 6) '1'he Hon'ble Supreme Court m fte case of P. T'ulsidas and others v. Go"emment ofA.P. and others , obsen'ed 1 earlier DY way ofgrant ofhigher pay or revised pay- catmot be taken away as the same is violative of Article 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India being arbitrary, ; 1.6'S-5 Supp (l) SCC 20 2AIR2003SCA3 ^^ a^^^.^- '^ » ~''"V'VS- 3 f •*"0*1 <-.- -I. 7) This Court, ia the ea.se of' Vidhadhar T'wari Vs. State of Ckhattisgarh & others has held that for ttie excess paynient, if any, made to the petitioner, he was not at fault and the amount received by him might have beea used by adiusting. himself accordinglv treatins the same as his salarv. At tUs staae. l&jtj directins recoverv oftlie alleged excess amount ffbm the pensi.onai'v benefits ofthe petitioner will 8) In view offhe reasons mentioned hereinabove, fhis petition is allowed. The impugned letter dated 31.05.2004 (Annexure P/l) directins recovery a sum of Rs.35,671/- on account of excess payment made to the petitioner, is herebv quashed. 'Ilie petitioner is entitled to fiill pensionarv benefits/'CTatuit amount without anv deduction. If the amount has been reeovered.. 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 recouree to Rule 65 of the Cbhattisgarh Civil Services (Pension) Rules. 1976, !f so advised. in accordance with law foliowing basic principles of natural justice. No order asto costs. Sd/. satisli K.T^.. ^A8»ihoM Jud,ge A-mit '2006 (l)MPHT 105 (CO)