@ HIGH COURT OF CHHAT’HSGARH AT BILAS'PUR WRIT PETITION ( S} No. 6878 of 2008 PE'HTIONER : Gambhir Ram Rotiya S/o Shri Budh Ram, Aged about 62 years, Rid. Vanpai, R/o Post Kansabel, Tah..Kansabel, Distt. Jashpur (C.G.) VERSUS RESFONDENTS : l State Govt of (/hhattiqgarh Through Sayretary For»: Department DKS Bhawan, Ra1pur (C (r ) 2. D1v;s1ona1 Jomt Director (Treasury and Penswm Bllaspur (C (J ) WRIT PETH‘ION UNIDER ARTICLE 6/.a27 OF THE CONSTKTUTION OF INDIA SB: Han’bie Shri Satish K. Agnihoti'i? J. 313% Samkam Velma, Advocate for the petitiomi‘. Shri Awind Dubey, Panel Lawyer for the State/responcients. ORAL ORDER (Passed oz‘fEéEa day of April, 2009) By fhis petition, the petitianer impugns the order dated 28.09.2006 (Annexure W1) passed by the respondent No. 2 whereby it has been directed to deduct a sum of Rs. 77,396/— as excess payment made to the petitioner, from the pensionary benefits. Shri Velma, leamed counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the issue asto whether recovery of excess payment can be made Without foltowing principles ofnatural justice is no longer res integral, the same has been settled by the Supreme Cowt in the matter of Sahib Ram v. State of Harwma and others], and further followed by this Court in the matter of Vidyadhar Tiwari V. The State Qf C'hhait‘z‘sgarh (5% Others; and Vidya . Shankar Tz‘warz' v. State QfAatP. (New State ofChkam‘sgarh) arid othersg. In the instant case, the impugned order has been passed without affording any opportunity ofhearing to the petitioner. Shri Dubey, learned ?anel Lawyer does not controvert the allegation that no opportunity of hearing was afforded before the impugned orders were passed. However: he relies on Rule 65 ofthe Chhattisgarh Civil Services 'Jlx ‘ i995 Supp (1) sec 18 ’1 2005 {1.)WHT 105 (Co) 3 2306 (2) Mere: 31 (co) (Pension) Rules, 1976 (for short ‘the Rules, 1976’) for the pumose of recovery and adjustmerit ofGovemment dues. The contention ofthe petitioner thai even for exercising power under Ruie 65 of the Rules, 1976, basic principles of naturai justice and fair play in action are required to be foliowed. In the present ease, the State/authorities have not afforried any opportunity of hearing to the petitioner to put forward his case asto why the deduction from the gratuity amount being excess amount cannot be made. The contention of the lrned counsel for the petitioner merits acceptance. This Conn, in the case of Vz'dyadhar Tiwari (supra): has held that 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 ofthe alleged excess amount from the pensionary benefits/gratuity amount ofthe petitioners will not be just and proper. In view of the foregoing and as admitted by learned counsel appearing for the parties, this petition is allowed in the terms ofthe order passed in the case of Vidyadhar Tiwarz‘ (supra) i.e. the impugned order dated 28.09.2096 (Annexure P/l) regarding recovery of Rs. 77.396/- from the retiral dues of the petitioner is hereby quashed. The petitioner is entitled to full pensionary benefits/gratuity amount without any deduction. If the said amount is already deducted from the gratuity, the same shall be payable to the petitioner with simple interest @. 6% per annum. However, it is open to the respondents‘to take recourse to Rule 65 ofthe Rules, 1976, ifso advised, in accordance with law, alter following basic principles of natural justice. No order asto costs. Sdl- Satish K. Agnihotril Judge yo ea