HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH: BILASPUR Writ Petition (S! NQ. 5051 of 2008 Kaiiram Sahu. Slo Shri Parsu Ram Sahu, aged about 64 years, Head Master, Primary Schooi, Budgahan, Block Balauda, District Janjgir-Champa (CG). Petitioner Versus Respondents 1) State of Chhattisgarh, through the Secretary, Education Department. D.K.S. Bhawan, Raipur (CG). 2) Joint Director, Treasury, Account & Pensicn, District Janjgir‘Champa (CG). 3} District Education Officer, District Janjgir-Champa (CG). 4) Princigal! Government Primary Schooi, Budgahan, Biock Baiauda, District Janjgir—Champa (CG). ‘ (Writ Petition under Articie 226 of the Constitution of india.) Single Bench : Hon’bie Mr. Satish K. Agnihotri, J. Present : shri Kunai Das, counsei for the petitioner. Shri Arun Sac, Govt. Advocate for the State. ORAL ORDER (Passed on 11‘“ day of September, 2098) With the consent of learned counset appearing for'the parties, th matter is heard finaliy. 2) The petitioner was initiaiiy appointed on 2-7-1964 in the respondents department. The petitioner retired from services on attaining the age of superannuation on 31-8-2006. After his retirement, the petitioner received a ietter dated 30-10-2006 (Annexure PIZ), directing recovery of a sum of Rs.3,795/- on account of excess payment made to the petitioner. 3) Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was not given any opportunity to exptain about the payment made to the petitioner. Thus, this order is vitiated for want of compiiance 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. e 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, aiready paid to the petitioner after his retirement, that too without foltowing the principtes of natural justice. 4) Learned counsei appearing for the respondentslState submits that it is true that no show cause notice was given to the petitioner. The petitioner was not caiied upon to submit his explanation for payment of aiieged excess payment and recovery thereafter. 5) The respondent authorities have not foiiowed the principtes of naturai justice and the impugned action has been taken without affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. The practice of passing order invoiving civii consequences, without show cause notice or without affording an opportunity, is condemned. Thus, this action of deducting Rs.3,795/- from retirai dues is bad on account of the fact that the petitioner was not afforded any opportunity of hearing before the impugned action was taken, also. 6) The Hon'bie Supreme Court in the case of Sahib Ram Vs. State of Haryana and others‘ in para 5 has heid 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 construction made by the Principal for which the appellant cannot be hetd to be at fault. Under the circumstances, the amount paid tit! date may not be recovered from the appeiiant.” 7) The Hon'bie Supreme Court tn the case of P. Tutsidas and othersv. Government of AP. and othersi, 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 Articie 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India being arbitrary, unreasonable and expropriatory. 8) This Court, in the case of Vidyadhar Tiwari Vs. State of Chhattisgarh 8. others3 has heid that for the excess payment, if any, made to the petitioner, he was not at fault and-the amount received by him might have been used by adjusting himseif accordingly treating the same as his salary. At this stage, directing recovery of the alleged excess amount from the pensionary benefits of the petitioner will not be just and proper. i 1995 Supp (1) soc 2o 2 AIR 2003 so 43 3 2006 (1) MPHT 105 (CG) 9) In View of the reasons mentioned hereinabove, mis petition is aiiowed. The impugned letter dated 30—10-2006 (Annexure PI2) direcu’ng recuvery a sugn of Rs.3,795i— on account of excess payment made to the petitioner, is hereby quashed. The petitioner is entitled to full pensionary benetitsigratuity amount without any deduction. if the amount has 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 to take recourse to Rule 65 of the Chhattisgarh Civii Services (Pension) Rules, 1976, if so advised, in accordance with law following basic principles of natural justice. No order r . asto costs. i Sd/— Satish K. Agnihotri y Judge