HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARHAT BILASPUR PETITIONER ••-^- ^w. Writ Pctitioii (S) No. 4649 of2008 Lakhan Lal Bhesle son of Late Shri Dhhera Das Bhesle, aged about 64 years, Retired Assistant Teaeher, Resident of Bus Staad Farasgaon, Tahsil Farasgaon, District Bastar (CG). VERSUS RESPONDENTS : 1. StateofChhattisgarh,ThroughfheSecretaTyDepartmentof Tribal Development, DKS Bhawan, Raipur (CG). 2. The Commissioner, Tribal Developmeirt, Raipur (CG). 3. The Assistant Commissioner, Triba! Development, Jagdalpur, District Bastar (CG). 4. The Block Education QfBcer, Tribal Development, Block Farasgaon, District Bastar (CG). 5. The Joint Director, Account, Pension and Treasury, Jagdalpur, District Bastar (CG). (WRIT PETITIQN UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF •I'HE eONSTTTLmON OF INDLA) (SB: Hon'ble Mr. Satish K. Aanihotri, J.) Present : Shri P.P. Sahu, Advocate fbr the petitioner. Shri P.K. Bhaduri, PanelLawyerforfheState. ORALORDER (Passed on 25 day ofAugust, 2QQS) 1. With fhe eonsent of leamed counsel appearing for fhe parties, the matter is heard finally. 2. The petitioner, workmg as Assistant Teacher in Tribal Development Department, retired from service on attaming the age of superannuation on 30.09.2006. After his retirement, the petitioner was served with an order dated 18.10.2006 (Annexure P/6), directing recovery ofa sum of Rs. 29J18A, and fiirther a sum ofRs; 12,6I2/- by order dated 05.01.07, total Rs.41,730/- from the retiral benefits on aecouat of excess payment made to the petitioner. '•s s /{ 3. 4. ^s. 6. Leamed counsel appearmg for the petitioner submits tfaat the petitioner was not eiven any opportunity to explain about the payment made to the petitioner. Thus, this order is vitiated for want of compliance of the principles of natural justice and fair play m action. Leamed counsel farther submits that there is no fault on the part ofthe petitioner and the amount is paid to him in accordance with tfae pay scales, revised and fixed by the respondents from time fo time. No reason has been assigned asto on which count the excess payment, tf any, was made. The respondents cannot recover the amount, akeady paid to the petitioner after his retirement, thattoo without followingthe principles ofnaturaljustice. Leamed counsel appearing for Ifae respondents/State submifs that it is true that no show cause notice was given to Ifae petitioner. The petitioner was not called upon to submit his e3q»lanationfbr payment of alleged excess payment and recovery thereafter. The respondent-authorities have not followed the principles of natural justice and the impugned action has been taken without affording an opportunity ofhearing to fhe petitioner. The practice ofpassing order involving civil consequences, without show cause notice or wifhout atfording an opportumty, is condemned. Thus, this action of deductmg Rs. 65,164/- from retrial dues is bad on account of the fact that the petitioner was not afforded any opportunity of hearing before the impugned action was taken. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of Sahib Ram Vs. State of Haryana and others^, m para 5 held, as under: "5. However, it is not on account ofany misrepresentation made by the appellant that tiie benefit ofliigher pay scale was given to him but by wrong constmction made by the Principal for which the appellant '{1995Supp(l)SCC20} ^£@@^-: ui Satel ^' cannot be held to be at fault. Under the circumstances, the amount paid till date may not be recovered from the appellant" 7. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter ofP. Tulsidas and others Vs. Govemment ofA.P. and others^, observed that the benefit accrued earlier by way ofgrant ofhigher pay or revised pay, cannot be taken away as the same is violative of'Article 14 and 16 oftiie Constitution oflndia bemg arbitrary, unreasonable and expropriatory. 8. This Court in the matter of Vidhyadhar Ti-wari Vs. State of Chhattisgarh & others^, held that for the excess payment if any, made to the petitioner, he was not at fault and the amount received by him mi^it have been used by adjusting himself accordingly treating the same as his salary. At this stage, directing recovery of the alleged excess amount from the pensionary benefits ofthe petitioner will not be just and proper. 9. In view ofthe fbrgomg, fhe petition is allowed, subject to verification of the facts. The impupied orders dated 18.10.2006 (Annexure P/6) & 5.01.07, directing recovery of Rs. 29,118/- and Rs, 12,612/- respectively, on aecount of excess paymeirt made to the petitioner, are hereby quashed. The petitioner is entitled to iull pensionary benefits/gratuity amount without any deduction. Iffhe amount has already been recovered, the petitioner is entitled to the said amount with interest at the rate of6% per annum. However, it is open to the respondents/State to take recourse to Rule 65 of the Chhattisgarh Civil Services (pension) Rules, 1976, tf so advised, in accordance with law, followmg the basic principles ofnaturaljustice. No order asto costs. Sd;- Sansb^.^1" 3ud8e 2 A.I.R. 3.003 SC 43 3 2006 (1) M.P.H.T. 105 (C.G.)