OF CHHATT! WritPetition(SlNo,5808of2i Petltioner resi Biock Ram, son of Hawal Sai Sidar. about 63 years, retired Peon, of village and post Palidih, Patthaigaon, District rsus 1) ;tate of Chhattisgarh, through Welfare, Dau Kalyan Singh Bhawan, Raipur, Chhattisgarh. 2) The Commissioner, Triba! Welfare, .* • D.K.S. Bhav/an, Raipur, Chhattisgarh. 3) The Joint Director, Accounts, Treasury and Pensjon, Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh. 4) The Assistant Director, Tribal Deveiopment, Jashpur, Chhattisgarh. (VVrit Petition under Articie 226 of the Constitution of India.) inuse ihotri. u. sent: Shri C.J.K. Rao counsel for the petitioner. Shri P.K. Bhaduri, Pane! Lav«yer.for the State. (Passed on 18"'dayofQctober, 2008) With the consent of isarned counsei/appearing for the parties, the natter is heard finaliv. ^\ ^-'f The petiSionerwas apoointed as Peon on 14-10-1971 in the Department of Tribal Deveiopment.. The petitioner retired from services on attaining the age of supsrsnnuation on 31-5-2007. After his retirement,:the petitioner received a ietter dated 2S-12-2007 (Annexure P/1), direcitlns recovery ofa sum 6f Rs.51,443/- on account of excess payment made toithe petitioner. 3) Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner subffiits that ^the petitioner was not given any opportunity to explain about the payment made to the petitionsr. Thus, this order Is vitiated for want of compljanc& ofiithe pnncipies of natural justlce and fair piay in-action. Learned counsei further sufcmite that fhers is no fault on the part of fhe petitioner and the anipunt is 1 '"<^-N^^^L"~'^ the ich paid to him in accordance with the pay scaies, revised and fixed by respondents from time to time. No reason has been assigned asto on fi counf the excess payment, if any, was made. The respondents cannot 'recover the amount, already paid to,the petitioner after hls retirement, that too without foliovflng the principles of natura! justlce. 4) Learned counsel appearing for the respondents/State submiis that it is true that no show cause notice was given to the petitioner. The petitioner was not cailed upon to submit his expianation for pgyment of aiieged excess and recoverv thereafter. 5) Ths respondent authorities have not foISowed the princlpies of natural justice and She impugned action has been taken without aff< opportunity of hsaring to the petitioner. The practice of passing order involving civil consequences, without show cause notlce or without affording an opportunity, is condemned. Thus, this action of deducting Rs.51,443/- from retiral dues is bad on account of the fact ihat the petitioner was noi afforded any oppoftunity of hearing before fhe impugned action was taken, also. in'bie Supreme Court in the case of Sahib Ram Vs. ofhers1 jn para 5 has held as ynder: itate of "5. However, it is not on account of anv misrepresentatlon made by the appeliant that the benefit of higher pay scaie was given to him but by wrong constructlon made by the Principai for which the appeilant cannot be held to b& at fauit. Under the circumstances, ths amount paid may not be recovered from ths 7) The Hon'bie Supreme Court in the case of Government ofA.P. and others , observed by way of grant of higher pay or revlsed pay, same is vioiative of Article 14 and 16 of arbitran/, unreasonabie and expropriator^. ii»iU<iS dii the benent accrued eariier st be taken away as the itufion of india bein{ S) •ki i the case of vi Shar Tivi?ari Vs. State e excess paymen't, if any, ma( OT-iount received by him ms to the petitioner. he was not at fauif and have been used by adjusting himseSf accordingiy treating the same as his ' 1S9SSupp(1)SCC20 2 A!R 2003 SC 43 32006(1)MPHT105(Ci tfj' Raju salary'. Af this stage, directing recover^ of the alieged excess amount from ths pensionary benefits ofthe petitioner will not bejustand proper. 9) In visw ofthe reasons.mentioned hereinabove, this petition ss aliowed. The impugned Setter dated 26-12-2007 (Annexure P/1) directing recovery a sum of Rs.51,443/- on account of exeess payment made to the petitioner, is hereby quashed. The petitioner is entitled to fuit pensionar^ benefitsf'gratuity amount without any deduction. !f the amount has been recovered, the petitioner is entitled to the said amount wiihjnterest at the rate of 6% per annum. However, it Is open to the respondents to take recourse to Ruie 65 of the Chhattisgarh Civi! Sewices (Pension) RuSes, 1976, if so advised, in accordance with iaw foiiowing baslc principles of natura! justice. No order asto costs. ;——— -'iSd/-- .: SatishK.iAgnihotri Judge