^ HI6H COURT OF CHHATTIS6ARH AT CTLASPUR Writ Pctition ra No. 4121 of 2005 Applicont Nimktl Ghurcu< Sonteke Accountant Depwtment of Forest Posted at the Office of &ivisional Forest Office Rcynmdgaon DMsion Rcyn<8id9<K>n (C.6.) Versi^ Non-Applicwit 1. State of MP. throughthe Secretary &epartment of Finance Vallabh Bhavan. Bhopal (MP.) 2. State of M.P. through the Secretdry Depwtment of Forest Vallabh Bhavan, Bhopal, (M.P.) 3. 6ovt. of ChhattisgGr+i throigh the Secretary bepartment of Forest D.K.S. Bhtwan, Raipur (C.0.) 4. Principal Chief Conservator of Forest fiovt. of Chhattisgar+i D.K.S. Bhawan Raipur (C.G.) 5. Oivisiond forest Officer Rqjn<md9<Km Forest Ojvision Rqjnand9awi (C.&.) Slngte Bench: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Satish K. AgmhoW. Present; Ms. Sunita Jain, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Sushil bub^, ^overnnient Adyocate for State/respwdents. OR&ER (Passed on 22nd &ay of Morch. 2007) The following order of the Court was passed by Satish K. /^nthotrJ. J. 1. The petitioner was p<^ted as Accountont in 1+ie Forest Oepartment, ^ovemment of Chhottisgcrh, at Rqjnandgaon. Under the pr'ovisior^ of the Madhya Pradesh Revision of Poy Rutes. 1998 which came into force vide notificatjon dated 9.3.1998 with retrospective effect from 1.1.1996 (Annexure A/4). The petitioner along with others were granted special salary of Rs. 250/-. The petitioner wcs |wid the arrears of payment of special pay also. Subsequently, vide order dated 3.2.2<%)1 (Annexure A-i) 0] 7^' benefits of special salwy of Rs. 250/- granted earlier vide notifjcation dated 9.3.1998 (Annexure A/4) was withdrawn. In mechanjcally manner without giving my o{yortunity of heQring to the petitioner vide impugned order dated 8.10.2001 (Amexure A/3), the Divisional Forest Officer. R<ynandgaon, forest drcle RcyncBTdgaffli directed to recover a ^um of Rs.17,2®)/-which was paid during the period from 1.1.1996 to 30.9.2001, in 69 installment, at the rate of 2S)/- per months cuid further poyment of 250/- os special poy was withdrawn. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that this cose te squwely covered by the decision of this Couyt in Vidyadhar Tiwari Vs. State of ChhattiS9arh and others 2006 (l) M.P.H.T. 105 (C.e.), wherein this Court after having considered dl the facts/ held that no excess payment was made to him. Even otherwise, for the exce^ payment, if any, made to the petitioner, he wc®not at fault and the omount received by hi'm might have been used by adjusting himself accordingly treating the same as his salcry. At this stageydirecting recwery of the alleged exce^ amount from the pensionary benefits of the petitioner witl not be just cind proper. It is, even o-therwise trite law that any order whidi vjsits on employee with dvil con^quences cannot be passed without q>plyin9 the prindples of naturd justice. In this case, m opportunity of hearir^ was afforded to the petitioner. Jhus, the Jmpugned order dated 8.10.2001 (Annexure A/3), is bad and deserved to be quashed. In view of the Qtove/this writ petition is allowed ond impugned order dated 8.10.2001 (Annexure A/3) is set aside. The petitioner is entitled to atl the benefits flowing from this order. No order as to costs. Sd/- Satish K. Agnihotri Judge