‘§€H SGU‘T OF SHHATTQSGARH: 8§L§§PUR Writ ?e’:ii§oi’a {$3 No. §§3 cf 295$ Pemicner Pmbhu Patei, SIG Late Swind Patti}, aged abeut 55 yams, iegai regmswiatwe cf laie Sm: Nirmaia Paiei‘ was warking as Assi$tant Pmbatioa Gfficer in i'he office cf P‘roba‘iior: Gf‘fmer Akikrit Bai Vikas Pariyema, Patan, G§sifict Eurg (CG). Resident of Padmanabhpur, Burg, Tahsil and Disti'ici Burg (CG). Versus Ressmimenis 1} Sia‘ie of CG” through £t’s Secreiaryi Direcmr, Wamen and Qhiid WeEara Devebpmeni Beiraz‘tmerai, D.K.S. W Bhawan. Manifaéaya, Raipur (CG), 2‘; Joint Eirectar, Givisionai Cfficer, Treaww, Acceumg & Pension, Ramur Eivisiora, Raipur (CG). 3) Probaticn Officer Akikrit Ba§ Vi‘kas Par§ycjna, Pawn Dismct Burg (CG). {Writ Petiticn under Art§c%e 226 of the Corwstiiution 0f inéia.) 5iegie Eemh : Hon’me WE” $a£ish K. Agnihctfi, J. ?re3em : Shri RS. Pa‘tei, counseé fey ii’ae aetitioner. Shri Amn Seo, Govt. Advcca‘ze for the 3ia’ze. $RAL iJ‘RDER §Pa53e£§ on 1$ih day a? February, 2wg) Wi£h the consen‘k of Earned counsei appearing fer the games, the matte” is heafd fmeiiv. 2) The wife of the peiiiiorier was appoimed as Supervise? in the year 1982 in ihe respondem Depariment. On 1—7-2003 she died in the road, eccideni. Thereafter, the eeiitiener reeeived a ierier dateci 3'i—i—2064 {Amexure Pii), directing reeevery ef a Sum of Rs.14,6?6i- on account sf exeese nay/men: made to the aetirioner. 3) Learned counsei appearing for i‘ne peiiiioner submits that the eeiiiioner was not given any opnortuniiy f0 e‘xpiain abeut the paymeni made 4:0 ihe peiiiioner. Thus, ihis order is vi‘riaieci for wan? of compiiance of the mincioies of naturai justice anri fair niav in-ec’rien. Learned counsei runner \r submits inert there is no feuii on ihe part or” {he peiiiioner and ihe amount is .7-..\ @ paid to him in accofciance with the pay scaies, ‘reviseci anti fixe<j by the respondents from t3me to iime. No reason has been aseigned asm on wmch eount the excess payment) if any, was made. "é’he respondents cannct recover the amount, atready paid to the petitioner attez' his retitement, that too without foiiowing the principtes of naturai gustice. 4) Leameci counset appearing for the respondentsIState submits that it is true that no show cause notice was given to the petitioner. The petitione was not sailed upon to submit his expianation for payment of aiieged exoess payment and recovei'y thereafter. 5) The respondent authorities have not foiiowed the orinoinies of naturai justice and the impugned action has been taken without affording an opportunity oi hearing to the petitioner. The praoiioe of passing order invoiving oivii consequences. without show cause notice or without affording an opportunity, is condemned. Thus. this action of deducting Rs.‘i§,07’o‘i- 'rorn retirai dues is bad on account of the fact that the petitioner was not“ afforded any opportunity of hearing before the impugned action was taken, aiso. 6) The Hon’bie Supreme Court in ihe case or’ oa’nib Ram Vs. $tate of Haryana and oihers1 in para 5 has heid as under: “5. However, it is not on account of any misrepresentation made by the appeiiant that the benefit of higher pay scaie was given to him but by wrong construction made by the Principai tor whieh the appeiient oannot be heio «I +to be at tauit. Under the circumstances, the amount paid tiii date may not be recovered from the appeiiant." 7i Government of AP. a/nd others? observed that the benefit accrued eariier by way of grant ot‘ higher pay or revised pay, cannot he taken away as the same is vioiative of Articie i4 and 16 of the Constitution of india' being arbitrary, unreasonabie and expropriatory. 8) This Court, in the case of Vidyadhar Tiwari Vs. $taie of Chhattisgarh 8: others3 has held that for the excess payment, it any, made to the petitioner, he was not at‘fauit and the amount received by him might have been used by adjusting himseif aocordingiy treating the same as his tees supp (i) sue 2o Are. 2903 so 43 -3 zoos (r) Mai-1T 105 (co) The Hon’bie Supreme Court in the case or" P. Tuisidae and others \r. \ i 1 saiarv. At was stage, directing recovery of the aiieged excess amouni f'rcm the pensionary benefits of the pefitioner wiii net be just and proper. §‘) In View of the reaeens mentioned hereinabove, this petiiion §s a¥3owed. The impugned ¥ettev dated 31-1 €004 (Annexure Pl?) directing recovery a sum of Rs.14,075!- on account of excess payment mace to the petittoner, is heteby quashed. The petitioner is entitled to fuii pensionary benefits/gratuity amount without any deduction if the amount has been recovered, the petitioner is entitied to the said amount with tnterest at the rate of 8% per annum. However! it is open to the respondents to take recourse to Rute 65 of the C‘nhattisgarh Civii Sen/ices (Pension) Ruies, t9?51 tf so advised, in accordance with i'aw foiiowing basic pn‘ncipies of nature? justice. No order asto costs. ‘i i Sm- ‘ Satish K. Agnihotri' Judge Gown 1i