AF^ HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR Writ Petition (S) No. 1275 of2007 ^ FETITIONER RESPONDENTS Smt. Urmila Rana Wife of Shri Pratap Singh Raaa, aged about. 67 years, Retired Assistant Teachei', Resident of Behmd of Govt. . Middle School Mara'ahi, Tahsil Marwahi, District Bilaspur (CG). VERSUS 1. State of Chhattisgarh through the Secretan' Department of Tribal Welf<u-e, DKS Bhawan, Raipur(CG). 2. The Director, Tribal Development, Raipur (CG). 3. The Assistant Director, Treasury, Accounts aad Pension, Bilaspur (CG). 4. The Block Education Officer, Marvvahi, District Bilaspur (CG). »• (i,VRIT PETmON UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSITrLTION OF INDIA) (SBLi!on'MeMr._Satish_K,Ag!u]iDfai,J.) Shri V.K. Pandey, Advocate fbr the petitioner. Shri Anm Sao, Govt. Advocate forthe State OKALQRDER (Passed OM 26 day ofFeferuar;', 2009) With the consent ofthe parties, the matter is taken up for hearing fiaally. ^ 1. According to the petitioner, the petitioner was appointed and posted as Assistant Teacher in the year 1963. The petitioner completed her B.T.I. course in the year 1961-62, and on the basis ofacquiring BTI certificate she was granted increments as per law w.e.f. 17.07.1998. On attaining tlie age of superannuation, fhe petitioner retired from sei-vice on 31.12.2002. After retirement from service, the respondent authorities, by unpugtied order dated 13.02.2007 (Annexure VII), directed to recover a sum ofRs. 2993/- ^l 'fwt.. A. ^ recovering increment amount from tlie anticipatory compensation @ 993/- per month Irom the anticipatory pension i.e. Rs. 2993/- pei- month. Leained counsel appeariiig for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has subniitted BTI certificate. Aecordingly, entry was made m the service book ofthe petitioner as is evident from Amiexure P/3. The deduction ofamount on the ground that the petitioner has not submitted her BTI ceftificate is vvithout any basis. The petitioner has submitted her BTI certificate earlier and again she is readv to submit flie same. 3. Pei- contra, leamed counsel appearing for the State submits the increments granted to the petitioner w.e.£ 17.07.1998 is illegal. The petitioner has not submitted her BTI certilicate which entitles tlie petitioner for grant of increments. The respondent authorities started paymg amount according to the petitioner on submission of BTI certificate, and according to respondents, without verifving BTI certificate. 4. Be fhat as it may, the defect is curable. The respondent authorities ought to have verified BTI cei'tificate, that was never done aud without affordine aii opportunity ot hearing, recoven'/deduction from the pensionary benefits was made. 5.*' The question of law, as to whether recovery may be made from the pensionary benefits wifhout afFordsng an opportunity of hearuig to the petitioner is no loneei' res integra. The Supreme Court in the matter of Sahib Ram Vs. State of Haryana and Others , P. Tulsidas and others v. Goveniment of A.P. and others , subsequently this court foilowing Supreme Court's decision in the matter of Vidyadhar Tiwari Vs. The State of Chliattisgarh & Others , and subsequently in several decisions it has ' I995Supp(l)SCC20 2A!R2003SC43 32006(1)MPHT105(CG) T"h Sahn been followed that recovery of amount from pensionary benefits or other dues on account of excess payment without affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, is illegal. 6. In vievv ofthe foregoing, this petition is allowed in the terms ofthe order passed in the case of Vidyadhar Tiwafi (supra) i.e. the impugned orders dated 22.03.2006 aad 13.02.2007 (Annexure P/l & P/2) regarding recoveQ' ofaniount from the gratuity aad ofher dues ofthe petitioner on account of exeess payment, are hereby set aside and quashed. The petitioner is entitled to fall pensionar>' benefits/'gratuity amount without any deduetion. However, it.is open to the. respondents to take recourse to Rule 65 ofthe Rules, 1976, if so advised, in accordance with law, following basic principles ofnaturaljustice. No orderasto costs. ^'^ 5^>'!v^&