¢£“%%/w §§£%?Q% % IN THE HON’BLE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR C.G. W.P.1S! No.. 1..@.2i ..j ........... 2O10 f T PETITIONER : ularam Sahu, aged 65 years S/o / Late Shri Ram Charan Sahu, Retired Asstt. Teacher o Writ etition under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India for issuance of mandamus ofwritldirection or an other appropriate writ. f 7e V” F School,Arjuni, Block — Dongargaon, 49£g§; a Vi Distt. Rajnandgaon (C.G.), M R/o Mahendra Nagar, Lalbag Q'Nlaf? Ward No. 19, Rajnandgaon (C.G.) Pvsgy'. Versus RESPONDENTS (1)'/ The State Govt. of Chhattisgarh Through — The Secretary, School' Education Department, D.K.S. Bhawan, Raipur (C.G.) ..a‘.\ Mls ‘ (2)€/Divisional Joint Director, /;’$g Kosh, Lekha and Pension, v . , am f \E\ Q‘? , Raipur C.G. (3) “XV District Officer, '.j@%%\‘ / v V (/g Y&“$\» / /, Treasury Officer, out; Rajnandgaon. \é/ HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR' WRIT PETITION (S) No. 6907 of 2010 : Tularam Sahu. VERSUS RESPONDENTS : The State Govt. of Chhattisgarh & Others. WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226/227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA SB: Hon’ble Shri Satish K. Agnihotriul. Present: Shri Somkant Verma, Advocate for the petitioner. Shri Vivek Sharma, Panel Lawyer for the State/respondents. ORDER ORAL (Passed on 29‘ day of November, 2010) 1. The petitioner, while working as Assistant Teacher, retired from service on attaining the age of superannuation on 30.11.2007. Thereafter, Vide the impugned order dated 3 1 . 12.2007 (Annexure P/1) sum of ’Rs. 41,302/- was recovered from the retrial dues of the a petitioner on account of excess payment made to the petitioner. 2. Shri Verma, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was/notgiven any opportunity to explain about the alleged excess payment made to him and vide the impugned order, a sum of Rs. 41,302/- was recovered from the retrial due 0f the petitioner. Thus, the action of the respondent authorities‘is vitiated for want of compliance of the principles of natural justice and fair play in action. He further submits that there is no fault on the part of the \ v\ petitioner and the amount is paid to him in accordance with the pay / \, \\ scales, revised and fixed by the respondents from time to time. No k5 reason has been assigned asto on which count the excess payment, if any was made. The respondents cannot recover the amount, already paid to the petitioner, after his retirement, and that too, without following the principles of natural justice. Shri Vivek Sharma, learned Panel Lawyer appearing for the State/respondents submits that it is not clear from the pleadings asto whether or not, any show cause notice or opportunity of hearing was afforded to the petitioner before the recovery of excess payment was made. The issue asto whether recovery of excess payment can be made without following principles of natural justice is no longer res integra, the same has been settled by the Supreme Court in the matter of Sahib Ram v. State of Haryana and others], and further followed by this Court in the matter of Vidyadhar Tiwarz' v. The State of Chhattisgarh & 0thers2 and Vidya Shankar Tiwarz' v. State ofMP. (Now State of Chhattisgarh) and others3 and thereafter followed in several decisions. The Supreme Court, in P.Tulsz'das & Others v. Government ofA.P. & Others4, observed that the benefit accrued earlier by way of grant of higher pay or reyisedmay; cannot be taken away as the same is Violative of Article 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India being arbitrary, unreasonable and expropriatory. In View of the foregoing and as admitted by learned counsel appearing for the parties, this petition is disposed of in the terms of the order 1 1995 Supp (1) scc 18 2 \ 2006 (1) MPHT 105 (CG) \_ 3 2006 (2) MPHT 31 (CG) \\ AIR 2003 SC 43 a r’ passed in the case of Vidyadhar Tiwari2. i.e. the impugned order dated 31.12.2007 (Annexure P/l) regarding recovery of amount from the gratuity and other dues of the petitioner on account of excess payment, is hereby quashed. The petitioner is entitled to full pensionary benefits/gratuity amount without any deduction. If the amount has 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 to take recourse to Rule 65 of the Chhattisgarh Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1976, if so advised, in accordance with law, after following basic principles of natural justice. It is further made clear that in the event before recovery of the alleged excess payment was made, a show cause notice was issued and reply was filed by the petitioner to the same, the case of the petitioner may not be treated to be covered by the decision of this Court in Vidyadhar Tiwariz. . ’ l Sd/— Satish K. Agnihotri} Judge {r Amit