^' e>% fflGH COURTOF CHHATTI^SARH AT BILASPUR PETITIONER RESPONDENT8 Wrjjt Petftion (S) No, 3412 of2W7 Bal Krishna Mishra, S/o Late Shri Ram Lakhan Mishra, aged about 60 years, R/o Bai^ala Para, ChAradhardhar Nagar, Rai^rh, Tahsil & District Raigarh (CO). VERSUS 1. State of Chhattisgarii Throu^i Secretary, Departmait, DKS Bhawau, Raipur (CG). 2. The Joint Director, Accounts Treasury and Pension, Bilaspur (CG). 3. The Forest Divisional Officer, Forest Division, Dhannajaigarii, Distriet Raigarh (CG). (WRTT PETmON TINDER ARTICJ .E 226 OF THE CONSTTTOTION OF INDIA) (8B: Hon'toleMr.SatlshK.Agnthotri.J.) Present : Shri Gautam Bhaduri with Shri 8-K. Tiwari, Advocates for the petitioner. Shri Alok Bakhshi, Govt. Advocate forthe Stafe. ORALOBDER (Passed on 01" ufAprU, 2008) 1. With Ifae consent ofthe leamed counset appearing for the parties, the matter is taken up for hearing finally. 2. By tfais petition, the petitioner impugns tfae letter dated 12.01.2007 issued by the respondent No. 2 (Annexure P/2) whereby it has been proposed to deduct a siim ofRs. 51,581/- as excess paymei-it made to Ihe petitioner, from the pensionary benefits. 3. The brief facts, in nutshell, are that the petitioner was appointed as Forest Guard in Ihe Porest Departtnent on 08.11.1965 at Ghat^ioda Range. Subsequently the petitioner was promoted to the post of Forester on 20.03.1982. After attaining the age of superannuatiem, the petitioner retired fiwm services on 31.10.2006. He reeeived Ifae impugned letter dated 12.01.2007 (Amiexiu-e P/2) issued by the respondent No. 2. - - f- .; 'Si N 4. 'Beme, aggp-eved, tiie petitioner has filed tUs petition prayii^ Ifaat tiie impugned letter dated 12.01.2007 (Annexure P/2) proposiag deduction of excess amount fi-om the pensionary benefits of the petitioner witfaout affording an opportunity ofhearing to put fwward case ofthe petitioner, is illegal, arbitrary and unreasonable. 5. Leanied counsel appearing for Ihe petitioner submits that there is uo fault on the part of the petitioner and the amoimt is paid to him in accordance with the pay scales, revised and fixed by the respondeirts fi'om time to time. The respondents cannot recover fhe amount, already paid to tfae petitioner after his retirement, that too without following the principles of natiiral justice. Lcamed counsel further subinits that the petitioaer does not want to press other reliefs on merit except that the amount which has already been paid to the petitioner cannot be recovered from the reitira! dues/gratuity amoiutf ^ on account of excess payment made to the petitioner during that period withoirt affording an opportiinity ofhearing. 6. On the other hand, leamed couasel appearing for the respondents/State submits that since excess amount has been paid to the petitioner, the same can be recovered fi-om the retiral benefits/gratuity amount oftfae petitioner, even on retirement withoirt afFording an opportunity of hearing. ^- 7. The Supreme Court, ia the oase of Sahib Ram Vs. State ofHaryana and o&ier^, in para 5 has held as under: "5. However, it is not on account of any misref»-esentationmade by the appellant Ifaat (hs beaefit of higher pay scale was given to him birt by wroag constmction made by the Principal fot which the appellant cannot be held to be at fault. Under the circumstances the amount paid till date may not be recovered from <fae appellant." '1995Supp(l)SCC20 8. Leamed coiinsel for Ihe respondents/State relies on Rule 65 of the Chhattisgarh Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1976 (for short 'the Rules, 1976') for tiie pi»q»se of recovery and adjustm»t of Govermnent dues. Riile 65 ofthe Rules, 1976 reads as under: "Rule 65 - Recovery and adjustment of Govermnent dues:- (1) It shall be the duty of eveyy retiring Goverament servant to clear all Government dues before the date ofhis retirement. (2) Where a retiring Govemment servant does not clear tfae Govemment dues and such dues are ascertaitiable:- (a) an equivalent cash dqiosit may be taken fi-om him; or (b) out of the gratuity payable to hitn, his nominee or legal heir, an amount equal to that recovwabte on acooimt of ascertainabte Govemment dues shall be dediicted. Explanatiou-1. Tlie espression 'ascertainabfe Govemment Aies' includes balance ofhouse building or eonveyance advance, arrears of rent and other charges pertaining to occupation of Goveniment Accommodation, over-payment of pay and allowances and arreare of income tax deductible st source under Ifae tocome Tax Act, 1961" 9. The contenfion ofthe petitioner that even for exercising power under Rule 65 ofthe Rules, 1976, basic principles ofnaftu'aljustice aad fair play in action are required to be followed. In fhe present case, the State/authorities have not aiForded any opportiu'uty of heariag to the petitioner to put forward his case asto w4iy the deduction from the gratuity amount being excess amou)^ cannot be made. The contention oftiie leamed counsel forlhe petirioner meritg acceptance. This Court, in the case of Vidyadhar Tiwari Vs. The State of Chhattisgarh & Others , has held that the excess paymeat, if any, made to the petitioner, he was not at feult and the amount feceived by him might have been used by adjusting himself accordingly treating the same as Ms salary. At this stage, directing recovery ofthe alleged 2006 (1) MPHT 105 (CG) '/i'^t I ^^SSsh. 1 ~!^VBf-!v~ 'r: kSwS!t:° Sahu 4 excess amount from 1fae pensionaiy benefits/gratuity amcunt of the petitioaer will not bejust and proper. 11. In view ofthe foregoing and as admitted by teamed counsel appearing for botfa the parties, this petition is allowed in the terms offhe order passed in tfae case ofVidyadhar Tiwari (supra) i.e. the impugied letter dated 12.01.2007 (Annexiire P/2) proposing to reeovery of amount from the gratufty and other dues ofthe petitioner on account ofexcess payment, is herely quashed. The petitioner is entitled to fiill pensionary benefits/gratoity amoiint without any deduction. However, the respondents may take recourse to Rule 65 ofthe Rules, 1976, ifso advised, in accordance with law and basic principles ofnaturaljiistice. No order asto costs. _—— Sd/- SatishK.Agnihotri Judge "•31"