u Kl fc,«- ~ ^89 HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR PETITIONER RESPONDENTS WMT PETITION No. 2035 of2006 R.R.Tiwari W/o Stari Ram Charatrial Tiwari, Aged bout 63 years, R/o 204, Dr. M.C.VeaMa Towsr, Mandir Chowk, Jarhabhata, Bilaspur (C.O.) VERSUS ,: i : 1) State of Chhattisgarh - Throu^h the Secretary, School Education Department, D.K.S. ffliawm, Raipur(C.G.) 2) District Edueation QfiBcer, Bilaspur, Distt. Bil^.pur (C.G.) 3) Joint Dkeetor, Treasury, Aecounts & Pension, Bilaspur Division, Bilaspur (C.O.) 4) Principal, Govt Women Physicat Educatica Coltege,Pendra,Distt.Bilaspur(C.G.) ; WRFT PETmON LINDER ARTtCLE 226/227 OF THE CONSTnUTION OF INDIA , ,:'• <:_:'.,;: SB: Hon'ble Stori SatiA K. ABirihotri. J. Present: Shri P.R-Patankar, Advoeate for the petitionCT. Shri U.N.S-Deo, Goveniment Advocate forthe State/respondaot 1, 2and4. ORALORDER (Passed on 09 dayof January, 2008) 1. The petitioner is agyieved by the action ofthe respondeats whereby fhe respondents have deducted a sum of Rs 43309/- from the graluity amount towards excess payment made to the petitioner durii% Ae period 01.01.1999 to 31.12.2005 (Annexure P/8 and P/9). 2. The brief facts, in nutsfoell, are that the petitioner was working on the post of Assistant Teacher. The petitfoner was promoted as Physteal Traming Instructor (for short 'P.T.I') in tiie year 1971 and senior P.T.I. vide order dated 30.11.1989 aad was plaeed in fhe pay sede ofRs. 1290-40-1440-50-2050 and after completion of 12 yeais afservieeas P.T.I., he was placed inthe pay scale ofRs. 1640-60-2600-75-2900 vide order dated 17.6.1993. The petitioner was again p-omotod to tiie post of Lecturer in Ifae pay scale of Rs. 5500-175-9(X)0 vide arder dsted :'^ F\ M 6. 14.09.1998. The petitioner retired as Lectura- <m attsumng Ae age of superannuation on 31.12.2005. A sum of Rs. 43,309/- has been deducted from the g-atuity amount ofttie petitioner, holding that excess payment has been made to tfie petitioner durii^ the pCTiod 01.01.IW9 to 31.12.2005 (Annexure P/8 and P/9). Leamed coimsel appearing for fhe petitioner submits that there is no fault on fhe part of Ihe petitioner and the amount is paid to him in aceordance vrith the pay scales, rewsed and fixed by tiie respondents ftom time to time. The respondetrts camiot reeover the amount, already paid to the petitioner, after such a limg period, after his retiremeut, that too wilfaout following the prineiples ofnaturaljustice. Leamed counsel appearing for the respondents submits that since the pay of the petitioner was fixed contrary to Ihe provisions an<t on scmtiny it was found that excess amount has been paiA Ihe same can be recovered from tiie retiral benefits ofthe pstitioner, even on retiremeat, wifhout affbrding an opportunity ofhearing. The Supreme Court, in the case of Sahib Ram Vs. State ofHaiyaaa aad o'ttiCTS^, in para 5 has held as liader: "S. Admittedly the cppelkmt does not possess the required educational qualffwation. Under ^ ciwumsitcmce^ffw s^ aspellant would not be entitled to the relaxcttiont The'v Pnncipal erred in granting him the relamtfon. Sm^^^dixle . a of relaxatton the appellant had beai peiid Ws setlafy'Wt'the^ s revised scale. Hcwever, it is nat an, CKcawfS ef .wy ^ misrepresentation made by the appellant that the-benefit of ^ the higher pay scale was given ft» him but..by.,'wra»g^. cwistruction made by the Principal fw whieh tlw eppeUfmt cannot be held to be at fault. Under the ciraffnstanees^fKe ' anwunt paid tlil date may not be reeovered fiwm&SK ^ appelkmt......" , 2 The FKpoadeirt-autftorities have not followed the prindples of natural justiee and tiie impugued action has been taken wittiout affordmg an opportunity of hearittg to the petitioaer. The praetipa-ofjiassing order fSi's^eSsSs'-. 'li % J] l^i.. '^:ss''.../' 8. involving civil/evil coasequenees, is condemned. Thus, Ihis action of deduetii^ Rs. 43,309/- from gratuity amount is bad on account ofthe fact that Ifae petitioner was not afforded aay opportuaity of heariag before flie impugned action was taken, alio. This Coiut, in tte case ofVidyadhar Tiwari Vs. State ofChhattisgaA & Others has held that for the excess payvaest, if any, mad®to the petitioner, he was not at fault and the amount received by him naght have been used by adjusting himselfaccordingly trerting tfie same as his salary. At tiris stage, direeting reeovery ofthe aMeged excess amount &om the pensionary banefits of the petitioner will not be just and proper. In view ofthe foregoiag and as admitted by leamed coumel aiq)earins for bothtiie parties, Itris petition stands disposed ofmtermsoftheoTder passed in the case of Vidyadhar Tiwari fsupra). The amount so dedueted be paid to Ihe petitioner wifli simple mterest No order asto costs. Sd/- Satish KAgnihotri Judge 1. 1995 Sui»p(l)SCC 20 2. 2006 (1) MPHT 105 (CG) Amit