\ 9Ww9 @ $§GH CmiRT 6F CHHAT?§§G&RH: @LA5PUR Wyit Peiitios'a No. $81 (3f 23% §etit§oner Haritram Shyam, 3/0. Suk‘nram Shyam, aged about 63 years, occupat§on — Reiired Head Masiet r/o. Viiiage Udhbhar, ‘1'ahsi! Makhamda, Eésit. Janigk-Cfwmga (CG). Vefsus Resgmm‘en‘és A“ \r S'iate of Chhat‘tisgafh, through Semetaw Ewca‘iiah. Mgn‘traiaya, “apartment DKS. of Bhawatw, Schoot Raipur (CG). 2‘; £c§n€ Dh’ec‘mr. Treasurv and Pensmi’a, Biiasilsur (CG). 3} rinsipai, Gev‘i. H§g§1er Secmdaz'y Sshcoi, Fagura Est: ‘Janggm Champa. {W{§i Petmon under Amde 225 of ix In:e f‘ vansiimtion of ind5a.) J $§ngie Eench : Hcn’hie Mr. §at§sh K. Agnmotri, . §reseni : Ms. $mi‘xa Ghai, counsei §or ihe pemioner. Mr. Y3. Thakur, By. Advocaie Genera! for fne Sia€:e. G§§L ORDER §?assec.i 9n 16:“ ciay a? Feiaruary, 2$$§; Wkh the cansent of ieamed counsel appearhg for ’i’ne pariies, the ma‘ier is head finaiiy. 2) The pe":%tione;' whiie working as Head Master m ihe respondents’ department i.e.. Gavemmerat Higher $eccndary Schooi. Fagmam, D§str§ct Janjgir-Champa (CS), retired fram semces afieg" atiaining €%1e age of s.aefannuation on 3’i-7-2392. Thereafter, the peéiiioeer rece‘wed a !et’ter dated 8-7-2004 {Annexure W2). d§rec€§ng recovery of a sum 6f Rs.2,”i7,848/- on account of excess eaymem made i0 the peimoner. 3) Learned couneei appearing for the pe’rii‘acner seemite that rhe petitiormer was mt given any opporium‘ty io expiain aoout rhe payment made to the eetit‘roner. Thus, rhis order is Vrtéeted for were of compiianoe of the prinoieies of naiurai’justice and fair play ire-action. Leerneci counser furiher submrte that there rs no farm on the part of the petitioner and the amount is paid to him in accordance wtth the pay scales, revised and fixed by the z i n respcndents fmm time to time. Na mason has been assigned asto on Wh§ch couni the excess payment: if afly, was made. The respendea‘ts came? {ecaver ihe amoun‘i, aiready paid to the petitkmer afte; his retkememt! mai ‘ +Loo wiihout foHowing the prindpies of na‘iural justice. 4) Learned counsel appear§ng for the {eepondenis/State submits that it is ime that no show cause noiice was g§ven i0 the petit§oneh We 9et§t§oner was net sailed upon te submit his expiana‘tiom for payment of aiieged excess paymeni and fecovesy thereafter. 5:) The reseendeht auihoriiies have nei foi§owed the princimes 0f nature? justice and the impugned acnon has been taken vn'ihout affordmg an epeoriunity of hearing to the petiéioner. ?he praciice of gassing Order invoivrng civil consequences, wi‘rheur Show cause nofrce cr wrrhour. afferding an oppcrtunity, is condemned. Thus, ihrs actron of deduciing Rs.2,17,84$f— frum retrra§ dues is bad on account of the fact that 'i‘ne petétioner was nor afforded any opportuni‘zy of hearing before the impagned action was taken, aiso. 8) - The Hon’bie Sunreme Coan.‘ in the case of Sana; Ram Vs. $‘ta'te o? Haryana and erners’! in para i3 has heid as under: “5. However. i’z is not on aoconnt of any misrepresentation made by ihe appeiiant that i‘ne ‘eenefit of higher pay scale was given :50 him bet by wrong construction made by ine Principai for which we appeiiani oanno‘i be heid io be at fauii. Under the circumsrances. ihe amount paid tiii date may not he recovered from the aspeiiant.“ 7} The Hon’bie Supreme Court in the case of P. 't'uisidas and others v. Government 0t AP. and othersg, observed that the benetit accrued eariier by way of grant 0t higher pay or revised pay, cannot be taken away as the same is vioiative of Article ’i4 and ”i8 0t the Constitution of india being arbitrary, unreasonabie and expropriatow. 8) This Court, in the case of Vidyadhar Ewart 3’s. .1 state {‘e ot Shhattisgarh & others3 has heid that for the excess payment, i any. made to the petitioner, he was not at fauit and the amount received by him might have been used by adjusting himself aocordihgry 1 treating J. lthe same as his . i tees Supp (t) soc 20 2 Ara 2003 so 43 3 20:35 n) MPH? res roe} U} saiaw. At this stage, directmg recovery of the alieged excess amount fmm the pens%onary benef§ts cf %he petitioner win no‘t be gust and proper. 9) m View of the reasons mentioned hereinabove, this pe‘tiiien is aiiowed. The impugried leiter dated 6-7-2004 (Annexuie W2) direciing recovery a sum of Rs. 2,1 7,84% on accouni of excess payment made aio the petitioner, is hereby quashed. The petitioner is eninied to iuii pensionary benefiisigramiiy amount without any deduction if ihe amount has been recovered, the petitioner is eniitied ta the said amount wish inferest at the rate of 6% per ennum. Howevei, it is open to ihe iespondenis to take recourse to Ruie 65 of the Chhattisgarh Civii Services (Pension) Ruies, 1978, it so advised, in accordance with iaw foiiowing basic principtes of neturei justice. No order asto costs. 1G} Consequentiy, M.W.P.No.558 of 2005 and other pending appiications, if any, also stand disposed of. Sd]. Satish K.‘ Agnihotri ‘ Judge