(^ i P.K. Sharma, aged about63 years, s/o Late Shri D.N. Sharma, Occupation Superiiitendent (Retd.), Office ofDistrict Education OiEcer, at present R/o Govt. Quarter, 4/4, 27, Ktioli, Vikas Nagar, Bilaspur, Tahsil 8& Distt. Bilaspur(C.G.j. State of C.G. Through Secretary, Education Department, D.K.S. Bhawan, Mantralaya, Raipur, Tah. & Distt. Raiplir (C.G.)~ Joiut Director, Treasuiy, Accounts 8s, Pension, Bilaspur, Tahsfl. & Distt. BUaspur (C.G.) The District • Educatiou Officer, Korba, TahsH & Distt. Korba (C.G.) PETITSONUNDBRARTICLE 226/227 PFTHB CONSTITUTION OF INDIA Shri Rupesli Shrivastava, counsel for the Petitioner. Shii Yashwant Si&gh, Deputy Advocate General for the State/ resgondents on advance copy. Heard. .- .By way of this writ petition filed under Article 226 of tbe Coustitution of India, the petiti.QB.er, who has retired on the post of Superintendent from. fhe ofEce ef District Education OfB.cer, Korba, has challenged fhe;validity of order dated 27,06.2006 (Aimexure P/l) and has also prayed for quashiag the sacae, by which, a recpver;- of Rs.28,124/ - has been directed-agauist fh.e petifioner. H &'' Leara.ed counsel for fhe petitioner submits fhat fhe proposed recoveiy is because of alleged excess payinent ruade to tlie petitioner diiring the tenure of his service. He subnuts that the issue as to whether recovery of excess pa^inent can. be uiade wifhout foUowiag the principles of natural justice is no longer res integra. The niatter has been settled by fhe Supreiae Court iu the matter of Sahf& Sam. V. State of Htuyana and others, 199S Supp fli SCC 38. aad furfh.er foUowed by fhis Court m fhe matter of Vldyacihar Tiwari V. The^Stet&eofChhsitUsgctrhand. Others, 3006 flj ]WET 105 fCG) aad Vidya ShanlewTwMirl V. Steste of »f.P. fflowState ofChhftttlsfiarhj cuid others. 2QQ5 12LWPBT A perusal of fhe impugned prder would show that no opportunity of hearing was afforded to tlie petitioner before passing the said order of recoveiy. Leamed Dy. Advocate. General for the State subnuts fhat Rule 65 of fhe Chliattisgarh Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1976 (for short 'fhe Rules, 1976') applies for the purpose ofrecovery and adjustm.ent of Govemiuent dues, therefore, the proposed recovery was directed. Leamed counsel for (he_ petitioaer subniits that even for exercisuig .power under Rule 65 . of fh.e Rules, l976,~~basic principles of natural justice and fair play ia actiou arereqiiired to be foUowed.In the present case, fhe said aufhority has not afforded auy opportunity ofhearing to fhe petitio-ner to put forwaixl his case as to why deduction iroiu the pensionary benefits cannot be made. He also relies on the' order dated 17.3.2009 passed by this CourtinW.P.(S) No.5607/2008.. In view of fhe foregoing and tlie earlier order passed b.y this Court, this petition is aUowed in term.s of fhe order passed ia fhe case of WidjitsS.har liwari fSupres) as also fhe order passed in W.P.(S) No.5607/2008 aud the impugned order dated 27.6.2006 (Annexure P/ 1) regarding recoveiy of Rs. 28,124/- ifrom. the retiral dues of the petitioner is hereby quashed: The petitioner is entitled to fuU pensionary -benefits/ofher ainounts wifhout any deduction. However, it is open to the i-espondents to take recourse to Rule 65 of the Rules, 1976,if so advised, ia accordau.ee wifh law, after foU.owuig the basic pnaciples of natural justice. No order as to costs. Sd/- SunilKumarSinha Judge -/Rao/