HIGH COURT OFCHHATnSGARH : BILASPUR Petitioner WritPetition No. 1845 of 2006 Ram Gopal Bharati, S/o Shri Shiv Prasad, aged about 63 years, R/o Hira Nagar, Mithumuda, Post Jutmil, Raigarh, Tahsil 8s District Raigarh (C.G.) Versus Respondents 1. 2. 3. State of Chhattisgarh, Through Secretary, Agriculture Departinent, D.K.S. Bhawan, Raipur (C.G.) The Joint Director, Accounts Treasury and Pension, Bilaspur (C.G.) The Deputy Director, Agriculture, Raigarh (C.G.) WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226/227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA (SB: Hon'ble Shri Satish K. Agnihotri J.) Shri S. K, Tiwari, Adyocate for the petitioner. Ms Smita Ghai, Panel Lawyer for the State/respondents. Q R D ER (Passed on this 4th Bfey of May, 2009) 1. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner, while working as Agriculture Development Officer, retired from service on attaining the age of superannuation on 31.8.2002. After his retirement, by order dated 8.5.2003 (Annexure P/2) a sum of Rs. 27,180/- has been directed to be recovered from the retiral dues of the petitioner on account of excess payment made to the petitioner. 2. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner subniits that the petitioner was not given any opportunity to explain about the payinent made to the pedtioner. Thus, this order is vitiated for want of compliance of the principles of natural justice and fair play in action. Learned counsel further submits that there is no fault on the part of the petitioner and the amount is paid to him in accordance with the pay scales, revised and fixed by the respondents 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 B^^ t. petitioner after his retirement, that too without following the principles of natural justice. Leamed counsel appearing for the respondents/State submits that since the petitioner has given an undertaking to make payment of excess amount, it was not necessary to issue further notice and afford an opportunity of hearing. The issue asto whether recovery of excess payment can be made without following principles of natural justice is no longer res integra. The same has been settled by the Supreme Court in Shyam Babu Verma and others Vs. Union of India and others6, Sahib Rain Vs. State of Haryana and others7, P. Tulsidas and others Vs. Governinent of A.P. and others8 and further followed by this Court in Vidhyadhar Tiwari Vs. State of Chhattisgarh & others9, Prem Shankar Dubey Vs. State of Chhattisgarh fiB others10 and several other decisions. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Shyam Babu Verma (supra), has held that the employees who have received higher scale due to no fault of theirs, it shall only be just and proper not to recover any excess amount already paid to them. The HonTsle Supreme Court in Sahib Rani (supra), in para 5 held, as under: "5. However, it is not on account of any misrepresentation made by the appellant that the benefit of higher pay scale was given to him but by wrong cons.truction made by the Principal for which the appellant cannot be held to be at fault. Under the circumstances, the amount paid till date may not be recovered from the appellant." The Hon'ble Supreme Court in P. Tulsidas (supra), observed that the benefit accrued earlier by way of grant of higher pay or revised pay, cannot be taken away as the same is violative of Article 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India being arbitraiy, unreasonable and expropriatory. 6 {(1994)28cc 521} 7 { 1995 Supp (l) SCC 20} 8 {A.I.R. 2.003 SC 43} 9 { 2006 (1) M.P.H.T. 105 (C.G.)} loW.P.(S)No. 1559/2008dt. 1.5.2009 8. 9. 10. Thakur This Court in the matter ofVidhyadhar Tiwari (supra), held that for the excess payment if any, made to the petitioner, when 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 of the alleged excess amount from. the pensionary bene&ts of the petitioner will not be just and proper. In the instant case, the impugned order has been passed without affording any opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. In view of the forgoing, the petition is allowed. The impugned order dated 8.5.2003 (Annexure P/2) in regard to the recovery of Rs. 27,l80/-> on account of excess payment made to the petitioner, is hereby quashed. The petitioner is entitled to full pensionary benefits/retiral benefits without any deduction. If the amount has already 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/State to take recourse to Rule 65 of the Chhattisgarh Civil Services (pension) Rules, 1976, if so advised, in accordance with law, following the basic principles ofnaturaljustice. No order astojsosts. Sd/- Satish K.Agnihotri Judge