HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR PETITIONER RESPONDENTS Wnt Petttipn (S) No. 6162 ofMW ^ Gyan Singh Chhatri, S/o late Shri Maya Ram Singh Chatri, Aged about 63 years, Ratired Junior Instructor at Govt. Polytechnic, Ambikapur, presently residing at Chakradhar Nagar, Bangali Para, Raigarh, Distt. Raigarh (CG). YERSUS 1. State of Chhattisgarh Through Seeretarv, Technical Education and Man Power Planning Department, DKS Bhawan, Raipiir (CG). 2. The Director, Technical Educauon Girls Polytechnie Building, Byron Bazar, Raipiir (CG). 3. Principal Govemmetit Polyteehnic Ambikapur, Distt. Surguja(CG). 4. B.K. Goel, S/o Not known, Retired Lecturer in Civil Engineering, Ex-Incharge Principal, Goverameiit Polytechnic Ambikapur, presently residing at C/o R.S. Agrawal 65, Deepak Nagar, Durg Distt. Durg (CG). 5. The Jomt Director, Treasurer and Pension Office, Bilaspur(C»). (WRIT PETmON UNDER ARTtCLE 226 OF TIiE CONSTTTUnON OF INDLA) (SB: Hon'ble Mr. Satish K. Agnthotri, J.) Present : ShriA.8. Rajput Advocateforthepetitioner. Shri A.S. Kachhwaha, Deputy Advocate Geaeral for the State. ORALORDER CPassed on OZml ofApiil, 2008) 1. By this petition, the petitioner impugns the order dated 05.02.2007 and 21.02.2007 (Annexiire P/6 Collectively) passed by the respondent No. 03, whereby it has been proposed to deduct a sum of Rs. 32,458/- as excess payment made to the petitioner, from the pensionaiy benefits. 2. The brief facts, in nutshell, are that the petitioner was appointed as Laboratory Assistant at Govemment Junior Techmcal School, Shahdol on 04.12.1963. Thereafter, the petitioner was appoitrted as Lower Division Clerk on 28.12.1972. Further, the petitioner was appointed as Woik Shop Instructor on 31.12.1982, and subsequently promoted to the post of Junior Instmctor on 01.09.1993. After attaining the age of superamiuation, the petitioner retired from services on 30-04.2006. He received the impugned order dated 05.02-2007 and 21.02.2007 (Annexiire P/6 collectively) issiied by Ihe respondent No. 3. 3. Being aggrieved, the petitioner has filed this petition prayii^ that tiie impugaed letter dated 05.02.2007 and 21.02.2007 (Annexure P/6 6. Collectively) directing deduction of excess amoiint fi-om the pensionary benefits ofthe petitioner withoirt affording an opportimity ofhearing to put forward case ofthe petitioner, is illegal, arbitrary and unreasonable. Leamed counsel appearing for the petitioner gubmits that there is no fault on the part ofthe petitioner and Ihe amount is paid to him m accordance with the pay scales, revised and fixed by the respondents from time to time. The respondents cannot recover the amount, already paid to the petitioner after his retirement, that too without following the principles of natural jiistice. Leamed coimsel fiirther subniits that the petitioner does not want to press other reliefs on merit, except that the amount which has already been paid to the petitioner cannot be recovered from the retiral due's/grattiity amount on account of excess payment made to the petitioner dimng that period without affording an opportiuuty ofhearing. The question of law as to whether the respondent authority can recover or dechict the amount already paid to the petitioner during his service time, from the pensionary benefrts, is no longer res integra as the same has been decided in the matter ofVidyadhar Trwsai Vs. The State ofChhattisgarh & Others . The Supreme Court, in the case of Satrib Ram Vs. State ofHaryana and other^, m para 5 has held as under: "5. However, it is not on account of any imsrepresentation made by the appellant that the benefit ofhigfaer pay scale was given to him but by wrong eonstmction made by the Principal for which the appellant camiot be held to be at fault. Under ifae circumstances the amount paid till date may not be recovered from the appellant." Further, in the matter of Shyam Babu Verma and others v. Union of India and others , tfie Supreme Court has held as under: "11. Although we have held that the petitiouers were entitled only to the pay scale of Rs. 330-480 in tenns of the recommendations of the Third Pay Conanission w.e.f. January 1, 1973 and only afiet' the period of 10 years, they became entitled to tfae pay scale of Rs. 330-560 but as they have received the scale ofRs. 330-560 since 1973 due to no fault oftheirs and that scale is being reduced in the year 1984 with effect from January, 1, 1973, it shall be only just and proper not to recover any excess amouiit •wtach has already been paid to fhem. Accordingty, we direct that no steps should be taken to recover or to adjust any excess amomit paid to the petitionera due to fhe fault ofthe respondents, the petitioners being in no way responsible fort he same." •2006(1)MPHT105(CG) il995Supp(l)SCC20 31994 (2) SCC 521 8. 9. Leamed counsel for the respondents/State relies on Rule 65 of the Chhattisgarh Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1976 (for ghort 'the Rules, 1976') for the purpose ofrecovery and adjustment ofGovermnent dues. Rule 65 ofthe Rules, 1976 reads as under: "RLile 65 • Recovery and adjustmeiit ofGovemment dues:- (1) It shall be the duty ofevery retiring Govemment servant to clear all Govemment dues before the date ofhis retirement. (2) Where a retiring Govennnent servant does not clear the Govemment dues and such dues are ascertainable;- (a) an equivalent cash deposit may be taken from hun; or (b) out of the gratuity payable to him, his noininee or legal heir, an amount eqiial to that recoverable on accoimt of ascertainable Govemment dues shall be deductBd. Explanation-1. The eqiression 'ascertainable Oovemment dues' includes balance of house building or conveyance advance, arrears of rent and other charges pertaining to occiipation of Govemment Accommodation, over-payment of pay and allowances and arrears of income tax deduetible at source under the Income Tax Act 1961" The conteiition ofthe petitioaer that even for exercising power under Rule 65 ofthe Rules, 1976, basic principles ofnatiiraljustice and fair play in action are reqiiired to be followed. In the present case, the State/airthorities have not afiforded any opportiimty ofhearing to the petitioner to piit forward his case asto why the deduction finm the gratiiity amount being excess amount eannot be made. The contention of the leamed couasel for the petitioner merits acceptance. In view ofthe foregoing and as admitted by leamed eounsel appearing for both the parties, this petition is allowed in tiie terans ofthe order passed in the case of Vidyadhar Tiwari (supra) i.e. Ihe impugned order dated 05.02.2007 and 21.02.2007 (Annexure P/6 Collectwely) directing recovery of amount from the gratiiity and other dues of the petitioner on account of excess payment, are hereby qiushed. The petitioaer is entitled to fall pensionary benefits/gratiiity amount without any deduction. However, the respondents are at liberty to take recourse to Rule 65 ofthe Rules, 1976, ifso advised, in accordance with law and basic principles of natural jiistice. No order asto costs. ~- Sd/- Satish K-Agnihotri Judge Sahu