^^ e^) @ Bsnch IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR W.P.(S.)NO. 3^2-'^ /2009 PETITIONER: »•"'-^. .^ o-' .y ^^^/ ey' VERSUS N.L. Rana S/o Radheshyam Rana, Aged about 64 years, Retired Vetemary Field Assistant Officer, R/o Village ChandU, Post Balpur, Block Dabhara District Janjgir-Champa (C.G.) RESPONDENTS 1. State ofChhattisgarh: Through The Secretary, Vetenary Sc, Aniinal Husbandiy Services Department, D.K.S. Bhawan, Raipur (C.G.) 2. The Joint Director Treasury Accountant and Pension Bilaspur, District Bilaspur (C.G.) 3. ' Deputy Director - of Vetenary Services Raigarh, District Raigarh (C.G.) WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA FOR ISSUANCE OF WRIT IN NATURE OF MANDAMUS CERTIORARY OR ANY OTHER WRIT OF LIKE NATl^RE ETC. The petitioner most humhly and respectfuUy begs to submit as under : •^:]iliEl .=Ss^";'- 63R ^ HiGH COURT OF CHHATTISOARH : BILASPUR WRIT PETITION (S) N0.36270F2009 PETITIONER N.L.Rana RESPONDENTS Versus State of Chhattisgarh & Others OWrit petition under Articie 226oftte Constitution of India) Single Bench : Hontle Shri Satish K. Agnihotri, J. Present:- Shri D.R. Patel, counsel for the petitioner. Ms Smita Ghar^Bl PL for the State. ORDERiQRAU (Passed on this 10ttldayof8eptember, 2009) 1. Heard leamed coursel for the oarties. 2. By this petition, the petltionw impugns the order dated 24-10-200S (Annexure P/2) passed by the respondent No.2, whereby a sum of Rs.28,937/- has been deducted holding it to be excess payment mada to the petitioner, from his rsiarat dues. 3. Learned counsel appearing for ffie, petitioner submits that the issue asto whether recovery of excess payment can be made without following principles of natural justioe is no longer reslntegra, the same has baen settled by the Supreme Court in Sahtb Ram v. State of Haryana ancf others , and further followed by this Court in VSdyadhar Tlwari v. The Stateof Chhattlsgarh & Otfiers2 & Vkfya Shankar Tlwart v. State ofM.P. (N(M Stete of ChtiaWsgarti) and otters. tn the instant case, the impugned order has bsen passed without affording any opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. 4. Learned counsel appearing for the State does not contrevert the ailegation that no opportuniiy of hearing was affeffded before the impugned ordere were passed. H(wever, learned counsel relies on Rule 65 of the Chhattisgarh Civil Services (Pension) Rulas, 1976 (for short the Rules, 1976') for the purpose of rasovery and adjustment of ** . Government dues. 5. The contention of the petitioner that even for exercising power under Rule 65 of the Rules, 1976, basiC principles of naturat justioe and fair play in action are required to be followed. tn the present oase, the State/authorities have not afforded any opportunity of tiearing to the 1995 Supp (1) SCC 20 2006 (l)MFHT 105 (CG) 2006(2)MPHT31(CG) llli"! -I I' r!< J /; i-w^ <&•,!. W 3' "s^. »• Gowri •2-- ^ petitioner to put forward his case asto why the dedtictien from Ihe gratuity amount belng excess amount cann^be made; The contention •- of i'ne tearned cotfnsel for the petitioner merite acceptance. 6. This Court, in Wdyadhar rswari (sufra), has held that the excess - payment, if any, made to the petltioner, he was not at fault and the amount received by him might have been used by adjusting himself accordingly treating the same as his salary. At this stage, directirig recovery of the aileged excess amount from the pensionary beneflts/gratuityamountofthe petitionerwill not bejustand proper. 7. In view of foregoing and as admitted by leamed counsel appearing for the parties, this petition is allowed in the terms of the wder pa^ed in Vidyadha- Tlwart {supra) i.e. the impugned order dated 24-10-2005 (Annexure P/2) deducting a sum of Rs.28,937/- from the retiral dues of the pet'rtioner is hereby quashed. The petitioner isentitied to full pensionary benefrts/gratuity amount without any deduction. tf the said amount is atready deducted from the gratuity, the same shall be payable to the petitioner with simple interest @ 6% per annum frem the date it became due till the payment is made. However, it is open to Ihe respondents to take recouree to Ruie 65 ofthe Rules, 1976, if so advised, in acccrdance with law, after fdlowing basic principlss of natural jusBce. No order asto costs. ^ .,:. Sd/- ., ^ SatishK.Agnihotri Judge JlN, cs: T !t Ni!itlilll"In ^^^^M^S^^sS^^ K&