N THE HIGH COURT OF CHHA’ITISGARH : BILASPUE Pst‘h'onsr Janak' Ram Késhati, S/o Late Shn' Chain writ Patition (S) No. 6880 of2008 District Singh K6sha1i, Jail Line, aged Raigarh, about 62 Di$tt. years, Raigarh R/c Respondents l. State Govt. of Chhath‘sgarh, Through the (c. G.) Versus ‘ Secretaxy, Finance Department, D.K.S. Bhawan, Raipur, Distt. Rajpur (C.G.). 2. Divisional Joint Director (Treasuiy, Account and Peneion) Biiaspur, Distt. Bilaspur {C.G.) WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTIQLIE 226 OF‘ THE CONSTITUTION OF INDEA .~.~._.~.__W“..~. (SB: Hon’ble Shn‘ Satish K. Agnihotri J.) Shri Somksntxlferma, Advocat-evfor thegetitioner. Ms Smitha Ghai, Panel Lawyer for the respondents. o R D R I?“ (Passed on this 26th Day of March, 2009) With the consent of learned counsel appearing for the parties, the matter is heard finally. 2. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner, While working in the Jail Deparunent, retired from service on attaining the age of superannuation on 30.4.2007. After his retirement a sum of Rs. 94,429j~ (Annexure P/ 1) has been recovered from the retiral dues of the petitioner on account of excess payment made to the petitioner. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was not given 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 in action. Learned counsel further submits that there is no fault on the part oi‘the petitioner and the amount is paid to him I in accordance Wim the pay scales, revised and flxed by the respondents mm time to fime. No reason has been assigned asto on which count the excess payment, if any, was made. The respondents cannot recover the amount, aheady paid to the petitioner after his retirement, that too without following the principles of natural justice. On 10.12.2008 . 1 {(1994) 2 sec 521} lealned counsel appealing for . the respondentsj State prayed for and was granted four weeks time to n'le reply. Thereafter, the matter was adjourned on 3.2.2009. Despite opportunities granted to learned counsel appearing for the respondents/State, no reply is filed. However, learned counsel submits that it is apparent that no show cause notice was given to the petitioner. The petitioner was not called upon to submit his explanation for 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 ofhearlng to the petitioner. The practice of passing order involving civil consequences, without show cause notice or Without alfording an opportunity of hearing is condemned. Thus, this action of deducting Rs. 94,429/— from retrial dues is bad on account of the fact that the petitioner was not an'orded any opportunity of hearing before the impugned action was taken. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Shyam Babu Verma and others Vs. Union of India and othersi, has held that the employees who have received higher scale due to no fault of & g2 g$’ theirs, it Shall only ha just and pfoper not to recover any excess amount already paid to them. In that case, the 33et1'tioners were given higher pay‘scale w.e.f. 1.1.1973, although only after a pem’od of 10 years they became entitled to the higher pay-scale, but as they received higher scale since 1973 and the scale was reduced in the year 1984 w.e.f. 1.1. 1973. 7. The Hon’ble 'Supmme Court in the matter of Sahib Ram Vs. state of Haryana and others? , in para 5 held, as under: “5. However, it is not on account of any misrepresentation made by the appeliant that the benefit of higher pay scale was given to him but by wrong construction made by the Principal for which the appellant cannot be held to be at fault. Under the circumstances, the amount paid till date may not be recovered from the appellant.” ' The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of P. Tulsidas and others Vs. Government of A.P. and others3 , observed that the beneht accrued earlier by way of grant of higher pay or revised pay, cannot be taken away as the same is violative of Article 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India being arbitrary, unreasonable and expropriatory. 9. This Court in. the matter of Vidhyadhar Tiwari Vs. State of Chhattisgarh 8s others", held that for the excess payment if any, made to the petitioner, he was not at fault and the amount received by~him might 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 of the petihoner will not be just and proper. 2{ 1995 Supp (1) sec 20} 3 {A.1.R. 2003 so 43} xii; ln‘; “{2006 (1) M.P,H,T. 105 (c.G,)} ~ ' ix Thakur #4, 10. In View of thé forgoing, the petition is allowed. The impugned order (Annexure P/ 1) in regald to the mcovely of Rs. 94,429/’-, 011 account of excess payment made to the petiu'oner, is hemby quashed. The petitioner is entitled to fail pensionaxy beneats/ gratuity amount without any deduction. if the amount has already been recovered, the petitioner is entitled to the said amount with interest at the rate of 6% per annum. However, it is open to the respondents] State to take recourse to Rule 65 of the Chhattisgarh Civil Services (pension) Rules, 1976, if so advised, in accordance with law, following the basic principles of natural justice. No order asto costs. / ,h. ; 8d]- . .\ Satish K. Agmhoml Judge a t i3 /