® HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH: BILASPUR Writ Petition (S) No. 501 7 of 2008 Respondents Petitioner Halram Sagar, 61 years, Son of Narsingh Mehattar, Prematurely retired Assit. Teacher, Primary 3chooi, Pate}- Para, Bamhani, Block Kondagaon, Distt. Bastar (CG). Versus 1) State Gavemment of Chhattisgarh, through the Secretary, Tribal Deveiopment Department, D.K.S. Bhawan, Raipur (CG). 2) Joint Director, Kosh, Lekha, Pension, Raipur Division, Raipur. 3) B§ock Education Officer, Kondagaon, District Easter (CG). (Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of indie.) Single Bench : Hon’bie Mr. Satish K. Agnihotri, J. Present: Shri Ajay Shrivasmva, counset for the peh‘tioner. .. Shri P.K. Bhaduri, Panel Lawyer for State. GRAL ORDER (Passed on 10‘" day of Septenber. 008) i 2 With the consent of learned counsel ppearing for the parties the matter is heard finally. 2) The petitioner retired from th pos of Assistant Teacer After his retirement, the petitioner receed a ietter dated 20.5.2005 (Annexure Pit), directing recovery of a sum of Rs.21,893/- on account of excess payment made to the oetitioner. 3) Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was not given any opportunity to explain about e paymet made to the petitioner. Thus, this order is vitiated for want of compiiance of th principles of naturai justice and fair play in-aotion. Learned oounsei further submits that there is no fault on the part of the petitioner and the amnt is paid to him in accordance with the pay scales, revised and fixed by the respondents from time to time. No reason has bn assie asto on which count the exces ayment, if any, was made. The respondents canot \ a , e t h. iv th n e ou ee gnd s p n 2 @ récover the amount, already paid to the petitioner after his retirement, that too without following the principles of natural justice. 4) Learned counsel appearing for the respondenwlSmte submits that it is true that no show cause notice was given to the petitioner. The petitioner was not called upon to submit his explanation for payment of aileged excess payment and recovery thereafter. 5) The respondent authorities have not followed the principles of natural iustice and the impugned action has been taken without affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. The practice of passing order involving civil consequences! withom show cause notice or without affording an opportunity, is condemned. Thus, this action of deducting Rs.21,893i- from retiral dues is bad on account of the fact thatthe petitioner wasr'not‘ afforded any opportunity of hearing before the impugned action was Eken, also. 6) The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the cxe of Sahib Ram Vs. State of Haryana and others‘ in para 5 has held as under: “5. However, it is not on account of any misrepresentation made by the appeiiant that the benefit of higher pay scale was given to him but by wrong construction made by the Principai for which the appellant cannot be held to be at fault. Under the circumstances, the amount paid tii! date may not be recovered from the appelian .” 7) The Hon’bie Supreme Court in the case of P. Tuisidas and others v. Government of A.P. and othersz, observed that the benetit accrued earlier by way of grant of higher pay or revised pay, cannot be taken away as me same is violative of Article 14 and 16' of the Constitution of india being arbitrary, unreasonable and expropriatory. 8) This Court, in the case of Vidyadhar Tiwari Vs. State of Chhattisgarh & others’ has 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 himseif accordingly treating the same as his saiary. At this stage, directing recovery of the aiieged excess amount from the pensionary benefits of the petitioner will not be just and proper. ‘- 1es5 Supp (1) soc 20 2 Ale 2o03 so 43 3 2006 (1) MPHT 195 (CG) \ @ 9) In View of the reasons mentioned hereinabove, this pe§tian is anaweai. The impugned ietter dated 20-5-2005 (Annexuta-PI1) directing recovery a sum of R521 ,893I- on account of excess payment made to the petitioner, is hereby quashed. The petitioner is entitled to full pensionary benehtslgratuity 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 following basic principles of natural jush‘ce. No order aStO COStS. < Sd/- {Satish K. Agnihotri Judge