'etitioner 'etifion i; >. SS64 of 21 Rupan Ram, S/o. Late Shri Madhura, agsd about 65 years, rstirsd Assistant 'eacher, R/o. Vliiage Ulkiya, Post Pratapgarh, P.S. Sltapyr, D'stl. Sarguja Versus 1) State of Chhattisgam, ti Education Department, Raipur (CG). Secretary, .K.S. Bhawan, 2) Accountant General. State of nhh^ffisn?lrh Pslnur {C^f^\ "h-f5 »i•SSSi.^i^^a^l = ;Sj i •V«.i;—'»ti ^^rf'<»-?^. 3) Biock. DeveioDment Education Officer. Shankergarh, Distt. Sarguja (CG). 4) District Treasurv Offscer. Sarauja. Ambikapu'- (CG). 5) Deouw Director. Penslon & Account Bjlaspur Divisio", Bilaspur (CG). (Writ Pstition under Articie 226/227 of the Constitution of India.) SB: Hon'ble Bflr. Satish K. Agnihotn, J. Present: Shri D.N. Prajapati, counsel for the petitloner. Shn Y^ShwSnt Strigh Thskuf, Dsputy Adv'OCSte Gsn^FSl for ths State. Shri Ajay Baraik, Advocate appears on behaif of Shri S.K. Bei'iwal, itanding Counse! for Unton of 'ndla. (Passed on 2"° day of Mm, With consent of learned counss! for the parties, the matter is heard finaliv. 2) By this pet'ition, the pet'rtioner has prayed for a suitabie writ or direction to quash the order dated 27-1-2006 passed by the respondent No.5 (Annexure P/1) as weii as order dated 18-4-2006 (Annexure P/2) passed by the resDondent No.4 i'Annexure P/2'i directina for recoverv of a sum of E^i^aESBBSB -2. Rs. 2,17.745/- from the retirai dues of the petitioner, because this amount was •oaid in excess. 3) The brief facts, in nutsheli; are that the oetitione' working as Assistant Teacher in Primarv Schooi, Bhodana, District Sarauia, retired on attainina the age of superannuation from the service on 31-1-2003. The petltioner received the communication dated 18-4-2006 (Annexure P/2) issued bythe respondent No.4, whereby It was directed that a sum of Rs.2,17.745/- be deducted from the oensionary benefits of the oetitioner. 4) Being aggrieved, the petitioner has fited this petition stating that the imDugned order dated 18-4-2006 (Annexure Pi2) dsducting a sum of Rs. 2,17,745.(- from the pensionary benefits of the petstioner wlthout afford'ng an opportunity ot' hearing to put forward case of the petitioner, to the petitioner is iiieaai, arbitrary and unreasonabie. 5) The question hereln asto whether recovery of amount from the retjred empioyee can be made without affording proper opportunity of hearing to ths Detitioner, is no lonaer res iudicata and has been settted bv decisions of the Supreme Court in the matters of Shyam Babu Verrns and others Vs. Union of India and others Sahlb Ram Vs. State of Haryana others' and order dated 17-11-2005 passedby this Court in the matter of Vidyadhar Tiwsfi Vs. Ths Stats of ChhsttlsQsrh snd othsrs 6) Thls Court in the case of Vidyadhar Tswari (supra), has heid that for the excess payment, if any, made to the petitioner, he was not at fault and ths amounf recejved by him might have besn used by adjusting himseif acconjingly treating the same as his salary. At this stage, directing recovery of the alieged ' (1994) 2 SCC 521 2(1995)Supp(l)SCC18 J (2006 (1) MPHT (CQ) 105 .3. Raju excess amount from the pensionary benefits of the petitioner will not be just and proper. 7) In view of the foregoing and as admitted by learned counsel appearing for both the parties, this petition is allowed in the terms of the order passed in the case ofVidyadhar Tiwari (supra) i.e. the impugned letters dated 27-1-2006 and 18-4-2006 (Annexures P/1 & P/2) are hereby quashed. The petitioner is entitled to full pensionary benefits/gratuity amount without any deduction. However, it is open to the respondents to take recourse to Rule 65 of the Rules, 1976, if so advised, in accordance with law and basic principles of natural justice. No order asto costs. ___ _ SdA Satish K. Agnihotri Judge TE'