HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH BILASPUR i Wrlt Petltlon (S) No 1083 of 2®09 ‘ Maya Ram Sahu, ag Id about 66 years, S/o Late Shr1 Narad Ram Sahu, R/o V111age Bahlgaon, Tah311—Kshka1 D1str1ct Bastar (C G ) i . Versus Educatmn 8s Tubal Welfare Department D K S Bhawan, Ralp (C G ) _ 2. D1v1s1ona1 Jomt D1rec£or Treasury, Penslon 85 r 3. ,D1str1ct Educat1on Offlcer, Bastar D1str1ct — Accounts) Bastar (C G ) ‘6‘ Bastar (C G ) f ants 1 ,r State of Chhattisg Through Secretary % i ,; e . » f ‘ 4. D1str1ct Treasury Offlcer, Bastar D1v1s1on, i ‘ L Dlstrlct Bastar (C G) WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDTA ‘ _ (SB Hon’ble Shn Saush K Agmihotn J) ; i _ 1n gaccordance Wlth the p respondents from tlme to t1me .No reason has been as31gncd as fault on the part of the pet1t10ner and the amount 1s pald to , _ ay scales, rev1sed and flxed by th 7‘ it l" E e to Ms Sumta Jam, Advocatq for the pet1t10ner p ‘ E Shn Yashwant Slngh Thakur, Deputy Advocate§General W1th Shrl Arvmd Dubey, Panel Lawyer for the State/respondents l ;%; . I ORDER 17th of Apr11 2009) I é (Passed on th1s Day W1thjthe consent of learned counsel appearmg for the partles; the matter 1s heard finally " Learned counsel appearmg for the pet1t10ner submlts that the Whlle workmg as Assmtant Teacher, ret1red from _ pet1t10ner 7 "service on atta1n1ng the age of superannuauon on 31 5 2006 ' After h1s ret1rement by order dated 31 8 2006 (Annexure P/ 1) a dlrected to be recovered from the suml of Rs 1 8O 006/ has been ret1ra1 dues of the pet1t10ner on account of excess payment made ' to tl1e pet1t10ner X 1 Learned counsel appearmg for the pet1t10ner submlts that the about the r (V pet1t10ner was not g1ven any opportumty to explaln payment made to the pet1t10ner Thus, th1s order 1s v1t1ated for I of comphance of the pr1nc1ples of natural Jusnce and fa1r want play 1n actlon Learned counsel further submlts that there 1s no f .._ q/( on; wh1ch count the excess payment 1f any, d. respondents cannot recover the amount already pald to the pet1t1oner after h1s ret1rement that too w1thout followmg the prmc1p1es of natural Justlce ‘ Leiamed counsel appearmg for the respondents/State subm1ts that 1t ls apparent that no show cause notlce was glven to the pet1t1oner The pet1t1oner was not called upon to submlt h1s explanatlon for payment of alleged excess payment and recovery thereafter However learned counsel for the State vehemently lgued that th1s matter deserves to be d1sm1ssed at the threshold as the 1mpugned recovery order was 1ssued on 31 8 2006 and the, petltloner has not explamed delay and laches 1n approachmg th1s ' } Court after a perlod of more than two and a half years 5. In case of f111ng of wr1t pet1t1on there 1s no 11m1tat1on as such 7 However, lookmg mto the facts where the aggr1eved person slept L over his rlght for a long penod and perm1ts others to acqulre some rrghts, 1t 1s held that the delay and laches m f1hng pet1t10n I ‘ should not be condoned In the present case no th1rd party r1ght has been created by commg after more than four years to th1s Court Thus, the delay and laches 1n f111ng th1s pet1t10n stands condoned 6. __ r The‘ i respondent-author1t1es have not followed the prmc1ples of natural Justlce and the 1mpugned actlon has been taken w1thout affordmg an opportumty of hearmg to the pet1t1oner The pract1ce ; , of pass1ng order 1nvolv1ng c1v1l consequences, w1thout sh0w% cause not1ce or w1thout affordmg an opportumty of hear1ng 1s i condemned Thus, th1s actlon of deductlng Rs 1 80 006/ fromi j retr1al dues 1s bad on account of the fact that the pet1t1oner was E L , not afforded any opportumty of hearmg before the 1mpugned ‘ act1on was taken 7.. V The Hon’ble Supreme Court 1n the case of Shyam Babu Verma and others Vs Umon of Indla and othersl has held that the employees who have recelved h1gher scale due to no fault of the1rs, 1t shall only be Just and proper not to recover any excess amount already pa1d to the I l ‘ ‘ _ ' _. 1{g(199“4) ‘2 sgcc s2 1} I11‘ l t 1 i I was mae The : m a ,Jf y A ‘K‘ 1 §Fate of Haryana and others? , in para 5 held as under: l l ‘ x l and exproprlatory " 10. , 11. r ‘ J l t x x The Hon’ble‘ Supreme Court in the matter of' P‘.‘= Tulsidas and "other’s Vs'vaGove‘rm-nen’t‘of A P and others3 observed that the benefit accrued earl1er by way of granlrt of hlgher pay or rev1sed ‘ pay, cannot be taken away as the sarde 1s Vlolatlve of Artlcle 14 and 16 of the Constltutlon of Ind1a bemg arb1trary, unreasonable !. Thls, Court 1n the matter of Vidhyadhar Tiwari Vs. State of 3, - Cfhhattisgarh 85 others4, held that for the excess payment if any, rrlade to the petitioner, When he was not at fault and the amount received by him might haVe been used by adjusting himself accordingly treatlng the same as h1s salary At thls stage, d1rect1ng recovery of the alleged excess amount from the pens1onary benefits of the pet1t10ner W111 not be Just and proper In v1ew of the forgomg, the pet1t10n 1s allowed The 1mpugned , order" dated 31 8 2006 (Annexure P/ 1) 1n regard to the recovery A of Rs 1 80 006/ ‘ Thakur , v 2 é ; {1995 {AIR Supp 2003 (1) sc 43} cc 20} ' {2006(1)MRHT 105(CG)} v ‘ The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Sahib Ram Vs. “5‘. However, 1t 1s not on account of any r mlsrepresentatmn made by the appellant that the beneflt of hlgher pay scale was g1ven to h1m but by t v wrong construchon made by the Pr1nc1pal for wh1ch ’ the appellant cannot be held to be at fault Unde the Clrcumstances, the amount pa1d .t111 date may not be recovered from the appellant " on account of excess payment made to the pet1t10ner, 1s hereby quashed The pet1t10ner 1s entltled to full pensllonary benefits/gratmty amount Without any deductlon If the amount has already been recovered the pet1t10ner ls ent1tled to the sald amount w1th mterest at the rate of 6% per annum However, 1t 1s open to the respondents/State to take recourse to V, Rulel65 of the Chhatt1sgarh C1v1l Serv1ces (pens1on) Rules, 1976 ‘1f so adv1sed, 1n accordance Wlth law followmg the bas1c . princ1ples of natural Just1ce No order asto costs ~ $atish K. Agnihotri ‘ Judge l I s