APPELLANTS ( ?a§ mJe/vw) P RESPONDENT (PETITIONER) H COURTFEE$ EXEMP it!) ; BY NOTIFICATION N0. 9960‘0‘287OIXXI" WC.G./05 AS SPECIFIED IN SWEDULE 1&n'OF THE COUT FEES ACT 1870. R BEFORE THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BILASPUR (C.GJ WRIT APPEAL No. 62% /2009 State of Chhattisgarh, Through the ecretary, Department of General Administration, D.K.S. Bhawan; Raipur (CG). The Joint Director, Treasury Accounts and Pension, Bilaspur, District Bilaspur (CG) The Collector, Raigarh, District Raigarh (CG.) VERSS U Kumari Dulari Thawait, D/o Late Mahatma Ram Thawait, Retired Assistant Grade e 3 Aged 61 years, R/o Mohalla Sonarpara, Raigarh, District Raigarh (CG.) :1. / WRIT APPEAL UNDER SECTION 2 OF THE CHHATTISGARH HIGH COURT (APPEAL TO DIVISION BENCH) ACT; 2006 S , xcb HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR Writ Apnea! No. 231 of 2009: State of Chhattisgarh & others APPELLANT$I RESPONDENTS ND. "i TO 3 Versus Kumaré Duiari Thawait Writ ppeai Under Section 2 of the Chhattisgarh High Court IAnnea! fn niuieian Danlqld f ”“hk Division Bench: Hon“bie Shri LM. Quddusi & Hon’bEe Shri N.K. Aqarwah JJ. i E3 nu wnvtcuun tawny“; Ac” K-uuv Present: Shri MRS. Bhatia, Dy. Govt. Advocate for the iig ‘ appellants. ‘ Shri Sanjay Patel, counsel for the responrient. ORAL JUDGMEN (Passed on 2" day of July, 2010) Per LIVI. Quddusi, J. Heard. 2. The instant writ appeal has been filed against the order dated 27-03-2009 passed by learned Single Judge in W.P.(S) No.74/2009. The writ petition was allowed and the recovery of Rs.24,693i- on account of alleged excess payment to the respondent during her service due to this alleged mis-calculation of pay fixation was caused and interest was directed to be paid @ 6% per annum. 3. The respondent was working as Assistant Grade Ill in the establishment of the appellants herein who retired from service on attaining the age of superannuation on 31-12-2007. In the year 1996, her pay was fixed. At that time, she was getting the basic p‘ay of Rs.4,590/- in the pay scale of R5350 - 1530 and personai as” pay of Rs.69/- but instead her pay was shown as Rs.189/- and ' was added to her basic pay and thus, due to wrong calculation, excess payment was made. Therefore, a sum of Rs.24,693/- was paid in excess. At the time of retirement, the respondent had given an undertaking on 31-03-1999 in the prescribed form authorizing the deduction of any excess payment. 4. Learned Single Judge has referred to Rule 65 of the MP. Civil Services (Pension) Rules. 1976 (hereinafter referred to as “the Pension Rules") which is reproduced as under: “65. Recovery and adjustment of Government dues.-(1) lt shall be the duty of every retiring Government servant to clear all Government dues before the date of his retirement. (2) Where a retiring Government servant does not clear the Government dues and such dues are ascertainable.— (a) an equivalent cash deposit may be taken from him; or (b) out of the gratuity payable to him, his ‘ nominee or legal heir, anamount equal to that recoverabie on account of ascertaina'oie Government dues shall be deducted. Expianation.- 1. The expression “ascertainable Government dues" includes balance of house building or conveyance advance, arrears of rent and other charges pertaining to occupation of Government accommodation, over-payment of pay and allowances and arrears of income-tax deductible at source under the Income-tax Act, 1961 (No. 43 of 1961)" 5. A perusal of above, rule shows that it is oniy applicable to the employees before the date of retirement. Since the respondent was already retired from her service, the provision of Rule 65 of the Pension Rules was no more remained applicable. 6. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent submitted that no opportunity was given to the respondent before making the impugned order of recovery. 7. Considering the facts of the case, we are of the opinion that the respondent should explain as to how there is no excess payment to her‘within a period of four weeks from today, if such explanation is submitted, a fresh decision shall be taken by the appellants thereon and a fresh order shall be passed. ln case the respondent submits explanation as directed above, and a edisfion is taken thereon, till then no recovery s§hall be made from the‘pbst retrial dues of the respondents. § 8. We direct according‘y and dispose of the writ appeal and setting aside the impugned order passed by the leamed Singie h d Judge. ‘ 7A__k_ ‘‘ Sd/- Sd/‘ i N.K. Agrawal . I.M.Quddu51 i Judge Judge i Kvr i i”