$ h m 5a Batc / a? Z g Béfore Hon'ble High Cpurt of Chattisgarh At Bilasur i w. P43). No. §é% Izoos Mismri Ram Patel /‘ S ge a out 64 year, (v? PE'fITIONER A b /o ShrirPanda Ram Patel R/o- Masaniya Kala Sa D } ‘ ‘ , kti istt.— iJanjgir—Champa (C.G) ERsus / g tate ovt. of Chhattisgarh S g hrough : TheSecretar Educatiém Department, .K.S. hawan, Raipur, ‘6istt. Raipur (c.G.) Jont DirectOr, i reasury, Account and Penssion Bilaspur, Distt.- Bilaspur (C.G.) t ' ESRONDENTs ! “:4: 4 ‘~‘ (Q/\/n g h g ‘ > V 1: T: y, i R D B / (T ), HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGA H BILASPUR MT PE IT O $) EQ 26812909 Mashn Ram ‘atel Vers‘ s State of Chh?ttlsgarh & another (Wrlt Petition under Article 226 of the} Constitutlon of India) S n Ie nch. on’ble Shn Satlsh K I otn re'aser‘IV‘t: « ' - Shn Shn Somkant Y S Thakur Verma Deputy ccunsel Advoc‘ate for the General petmoner for the State PETimONER BE§FQNRENT§ ‘ RAL ORD (Passed on thls 10‘“ day of September, 2009) _gHeard counsel for the parties 1. By this petltuon the petmoner lmpugns the order dated 27- 0-2007 (Annexure PI1) passed by the respondent No2 whereby a sum of Rs 13 280i- has been deducted holding It to be excess payment made to the petitioner from hrs retlral dues ‘ i 2.‘ Shn SomkantVerma learned counsel appearrng forthe petitioner submits that the issue asto whether recovery of excess payment can be made wrthout followrng pnncrptes of natural Justrce Is no longer res mtegra the same has been settled by the Supreme Court In the matter of Sahrb Ram v State of Haryana and d by thrs Court rn the matter of Vrdyadhar Trwan v The others and further followe State of Chhaffrsgarh & Others and Vldya Shankar Trwan v State of M P (Now State of Chhattrsgam) and others ln the rnstant case the rmpugned order has been passed wrthout affordrng any opportunrty of hearrng to the petrtloner 3. Shn Thakur learned Deputy Advocate General does not controvert the altegatron that no opportunity of hearrng was afforded before the rmpugned orders I were passed However he relies on Rule 65 of the Chhattrsgarh Clvrl Sen/Ices (Pensron) Rules 1976 (for short ‘the Rules 1976) for the purpose of recovery and adjustment of Government du‘es . ,, . ' l ‘ 1995 Supp (1) scc 20 2 2005 (1) MPHT 105 (CG) ‘ 3 2006 (2) MPHT 31 (CG) .\\ LP f/ ‘ ,. 4. The contention of the petitioner that even for exermsmg power under ule 65 of the Rules 1976 basuc pnnclples of natural ju tlce and fair play m action are requured to be followed ln the present case t e State/authonttes have not afforded any opportumty of heanng to the petition r to put fonlvard his case asto why the deduction from the graturty amount bel g excess amount cannot be made The contention of the learned counsel for thJ petitioner merits acceptance l 5. This Court, in the case of Vidyadhar 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 adiustlng himself accordingly treating the same as his salary At this stage directing recovery of the alleged excess amount from the pensronary benefts/gratwty amount of the petitioner Will not be just and proper 6. \ in Lview of the foregoing and as admitted by‘gglearned counsel appearing for: the parties, this petition is allowed in the terms of the order passed in the case of3' Vidyaofiar Tiwan (supra) ie the impugned order dated 27-10-2007 (Annexure§ P/1) deducting a sum of Rs 1328DI- from the retiral dues of the petitioner is hereby quashed. The petitioner is entitled to full penSionary benefts/gratuityi amount Without any deduction. lf the said amount isaiready deducted from thef gratuity, the same shall be payableto the petitioner with simple interest @ 6% per‘ annum from the date it became due tili the payment is' made However it is open to the respondents to take recourse to Rule 65 of the Rules 1976 if so advrsed in accordance With law after followmg basic prinCiples of natural justice No order asto costs. l l s _ V i SatlshK Agmhotn \j l i . Judge l, R