:'>~, ^yw /y HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGAKH AT BILASPUR PETITIONER RESPONDENTS WMT PETITION (S} No. 5826 of2<M»8 Munindra Raj Sit^h Thakur, son of Lin^i Raj Singh Thakur, aged about 65 years, Asstt. Teacher, residence of village Balajhar, Post Tarota, Tahsil Patthalgaon, District Jaslq^ur, Chhattisgarh. VEKSUS 1. State of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Department ofTriabl Welfare, Dau Kalyan Singh Bhawan, Raipur Chhattisgarh. 2. Tbe Commissioner, Tribal Weltare, DKS Bhawan, Raipur, Chhattisgarh. 3. The Joint Director Treasury Accouirtant Treasury and Pension, Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh. 4. The Assistant Director, Tribal Development, Jaslyur, Chhattisgarh. WJRIT PE'iniON UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTmjnON OF INDIA SB: Hon'Me Shri SaUsh K. Aanihotri, J. Present: Sim C.J.K. Rao, Advocate for thepetitioner. Snrt. Smita Ghai, Paael Lawyer for the State. OKALORUER (Passed on 18th day ofOctober, 2008) With the consent of leaiied counsel appearing for the parties, the matter is heard finallv. 2) The petitioner was mitially appointed as Asstt. Teacher on 27.02.1973 m the respondent depariment. Subsequently, the petitioner was given benefit ofpay scale. He retired from service on attamiag tfae age of superannuation on 31.03.2005. The petitioner received a letter dated 18.01.2006 (Amiexure P/l), directing recovery ofa sum of Rs. 7.452/- on account of excess pavment made to the petitioner. 3) Leamed counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was not given any opportunity to explain about the payment made to the petitioner. Thus, fhis order is vitiated for want ofcompliance ofthe principles ofnatural justice and .i\- ;/ fair play in-action. Leamed counsel further submits that there is no tault on the part of the petitioner and the amount is paid to him in accordance wifh the pay scales, revised and fixed by the respandents from time to time. No 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, that too without fellowing the prmciples ofnaturaljustice. 4) Leamed counsel appearing for the respondents/Stale subaiits that it is true that no show cause notice was given to the petitioner. The petitioner was not called upon to submit his explanation fbr payment of alleged excess payment and reeovery 5) The respondent authorities have not followed the principles of natural justice and the impugned action has been taken without affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. 'Fhe practice ofpassing order involving civil consequences, without show cause notice or without ajGFording aa opportunity, is condemned. Thus, this action ofdeducting Rs. 7,452/- from retiral dues is bad on account ofthe fact that the petitioner was not affbrded any opportunity of hearing befbre the impugned action wastaken, also. 6) The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Sdrib Ram Vs. State <rf" Harysina and others in para 5 has held as under: "5. However, it is not on accouat of any misrepresentation made by tiie appellant Ifaat the benefit of higher pay scale was given to him birt by wrong constroction made by the Principal for which the appellant cannot be held to be at tault. Under the circiunstaiiees, the amount paid till date may not be recovered from the appellant." 7) The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of P. Tulsidas and ofhers v. Govemment ol'A.P. and otherf, observed fhat the benefit accrued earlisr by way of '1995Supp(l)SCC20 "AM2003SC43 : ^ 3" grant ofhigher pay cn- revised pay, cannot be taken away as the same is violative of Article 14 and 16 ofthe Constitution of India being arbitrary, unreasonable and expropnatory. 8) This Court, in the case of Vidyadiiar Tiwari Vs. State of Chhattisgarh & others has held that for fhe excess payment, if any, made to the petitioner, he was not at fault and the amount received by him rm^at have be6n used by adjusting himself accordingly Ireating the same as his salary. At this stage, directiag recoyery ofthe alleged excess amount framthe pensionary benefits of&e petitioner will not be just and proper. 9) In view of the reasons mentioned hereinabove, this petition is allowed. The impugned letter dated 18.01.2006 (Annexure P/l) directing recovery a sum ofBs. 7,452/- on account of excess payment made to the petitioner, is hereby quashed. The petitioner is entitled to lull pensionary benefits/gratuity amount without any deduction. tf the amount has been recovered, the petitioner is entitled to the said amount wifh mterest at the rate of 6% per annum. However, it is open to the respondents to take any step, if so advised, in accordance wilfa law following basic principles ofnaturaljustice. j ------------- Satish K. Aghihotri ^UelBMUU 1U3 <AA.y