HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGVARH: BILASPU rit Petitiow} No. 1361 of zeea ‘ _ Davaram Darsena aue amut 64 yeays Retued Head Master Sic Shn sahasram Dansena Rio VIHage - Hami, Pe$t Portha, Distt. Janjgir— Champa {CG}. ‘ Versus State Govt. of Chhatt§sgarh, through the Secretary, Triba§ \Weifare Department, D.K.S. Bhawan, Ra§pu (CG). L 2) Divisional Joint Direcior, Treasury, Account, & Pension, 'BHaspur Div§s§om I Biiaspur (CG). 3 3) Block Education emcer} Bmck Kharsaa, Distt Rmgarh (CG) ‘ Petitiener‘ espondent , Rs (Writ Petition under Articie 226 of the Constitution of indxa r Singie Bench ‘ Hon ble Mr. Saush K. Agmhotn, J. Presem. Shn Somkant Verma counseiforthe petitioner Sho MRS. Bhataa, Dy. Govt. Advocate for Ike State. ‘ORAL GREEK (Passed on this em day of March 20w) With the consem of iearned counsei appearing for the parties the matter :s heard fmaiiy V 2) The petitioner while‘working as a Head Master retired from services on attaining the age of superannUation on 31 5 2007 After his retirement the petitioner received a tetter/dated 18 8-2001 (Annexure PM) directing recovery of a sum of Rs 15 158$ on accourt of excess payment made to the petitioner. 3) Learned ' counsei appearing for the petitioner submits that th petitioner was not given any opportunity to explain about the payment made to the petitioner Thus this order is vitiated for want of compliance of the pmmpies of naturai justice and fair play in aetion Learned oounsei farther submits that there is no fault on the part of the petitioner and the amount is v ll paid to him in accordance With trie pay scales, revrsed and fixed by the respondents from time to time. No reason has been assigned asto on which R W r ) e ’count the excess payment, if any, was made. The respondents ‘cahnot recoVer the amount, already paid t0 the petitioner after his retirement, rhat too without‘rfoiiowing the principles of natural justice; 4) r Learned counsei appearing for ihe respondentsIState submits that ii is true that no shew cause notice was given to the petmoner The petitioner was not caiied upon to submit his expianetion ror payment of aiieged exces payment and recovery thefeaiter i 5} The respondent authorities have not foiiowed the principles of natura justiee- and the impugned action has been taken without affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitionet. The practice of passing order involving civii consequences, without Show cause notice or Without affording an opportunity, is condemned. Thus, this action of deducting Rs. 15:158I- from retiral dues is baci on account of the fact that the petitionet was not afforded any opportunity of hearing before the impugned action was taken, aiso. 6) The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Sahib Ram Vs. State of Haryana and others‘ in para 5 has heid as under: “5 However it .s not on account of any misrepresentation made by the appeilant that the benefit of higher pay scale was given to him but by wrong construction made by the Principal for which the appeliant cannot be heid to be at auit Under the oi cumszances the amount paid til! date may not be recovered from the appeiiant " 'r') The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of F. ‘i‘uisidas and others v. r Government of AP. and othersz, observed thatthe benefit accrued earlier bv way of grant of higher pay or revised pay, carnot be taken away as the same is Violative of Articie tfand 16 of the Constitution of india being arbitrary, unreasonable and expropriatory f 8) - This Court, in the case of Vidyadhar Tiwari Vs. tate o Chhattisga’rh & othersa has heid 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 salary. At this stage, directing recovery of the aileged excess amount from the pensionary benefits of the petitioner wiii not be just and proper. i tees supp (i) soc 20 2 AIR zoos so 43 3 2066 (1) MPHT 105 (CG) r s ‘ 9) In View of the reasons mentioned here§nab9ve, this pet'mon is aiiowed. The impugned letter dated ‘13-8~2i}07 (Annexure Pi1) directing recovery a sum of Rs.16,158/- on account of excess payment made to the petitioner, is hereby quashed. The petitioner is entitied to fuii pensionary benefitslgratuity, 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 Ruie 65 of the Chhattisgarh Civii Services (Pension) Ruies, 1975, ii‘ so advised, in accordance with law foiiowin basic principies of nature! justice. No orde Sd/- L47 , Satish K. Agnihotri‘ Judge ” g r i asto costs. @