19 §§$H C§L3RT QF SEN ?T§3GRRH: BELASQJR Wm Femim‘a $3 i‘é0.64?3 c? 2§§3 momer ”Ele Ram Shis’omani Sharma. 3/0. Bamak‘m 1r Sharma, aged abcut 65 years, L’a Paiei Coicny, Dhaymjagam, ms‘i Raigarh (CG) Versus Respondems i) State of Chhai‘iisgarh. thmugh Secretary, Farest Department D.K.S. E’nawan, Raipur {CG}. Mr. Pankaj Shrivaseiava, Pane? Lawyer for ?he State. $Rm. 0RDE§ §Passed an Wm day c-f :‘ebruary. iiiiIQ} With the consem’: cf ieamee ceunse§ apnearim f9? fne parties. the mai‘tei' is heard fmaMy. 2'; Tee petitioner whiie W0¥king as Depmy Faresi Ranger in respendenis’ departmen‘i retired fram services arrer afieinirsg the aae of ‘ ' superannuaiicr‘: en 3i—5-29S3. 'i‘hereafier. "ihe petitieraer received a ietter denied 3"i-7-2Ga3 {Annexure Pl2‘. directing recovery of a sum of Rs. 2OSQOI- en aceeun? 0f nora-deposi‘i' of the ameunt, which wires ceiiecied by the peii‘rioner from the Kanakbeera barrier. 3' Learned counsei apeeari‘ng for ’zi’ie peiitioner submiie thai the petitioner was noi given any opeeriuniiy i0 expia’m abeui the paymemt made . i0 rhe pe‘riéioner. Thus, this order is viria‘ied for wan? of compiiance or the princieies of naturai jusiice and fair piay in-acrien. Leerraee‘ counsei furiher submits ihai. there is ne feuii ori the ear; of the peiiiioner ami ihe emoum is paid i0 him m aceerciance with the pay scaies, revised and fixed by the 2} ‘v’a'n Samakshak, Biéasmir Circie‘ EHaspur (CG) 3} Van ‘Iyi'ianczaiaadhékarin Ramam, Van Mandai {CG}. 4) Saperinienéem, Vanya Pram, Abhyaaranya, Gamarda, Sarangam, Eisit. Raigarh (CG). (Writ Pet§tion under A§€icie 228 of the Constitutbn e? ind§aj Sirigie Beneh : Hon’bie Mr. Sat§sh K. Ramhwii. J. resent Ma“. Sang‘ay Paiei. counseifcrthe peéitioner. respondenis fmm time to timeA No reason has been assigned as€o cm which caunt €he excess payment, if any, was made‘ The respcndem‘zs caanat recever the amount, aiready paid to the betitioner aaer his retii'ememi. that too wiihoui foilowmg the principies of aatui‘a! jusace. 4} 7‘) k) §~3> “5. Hcwevef, ii §s mt an acccuni a?‘ afiy mis¥egmseat3€icn maria by the aweiEant ma the benefit 9f higher pay scaie was-given in him bui by wrong censiwction made by i‘ne Principai fGr which ihe appeiiané cams”: be heid t0 be a€ fami Under the circumsiances‘ the amount {raid tiii date may no: be recovered from the aweiiam.“ The i-ion‘hie Supreme Cou i in the case of P. Tuisioias and others v. government oi AF: anti otherszi obseived that the benefit aoorued eatiier by way of grant of higher pay or revised pay, cannot be taken away as the same is vioiative of Article i4 and 16 oi the Constitution of indie being afbmax'y, unreascnabie and expropi’iatory. 5} i tees supp (i) soc 2o ‘ A3R 2003 SC 43 3 23%6 (1) MPH? 105 (CG) Learned counsel appeai'ing for the reseondentsfState submits that it is ime that no Show cause notice was given ta the peiiiEoner. The pe'tita‘oaer was not caHed upcn to subm§t his exp§anat§on for payment of ai%eged excess payment and recovery thereafter. 5) The respondent authorities have not foiiowed the principies of naturai justice and the impugned action has been iaken without affording an eppodunity of hearing to the petitioner. The practice of passing ofdet invoiving civii consequences, Without Show cause notice or without affoto‘ing an opportunity, is oondemneci. Thus. this action or“ deducting Rs.20‘00§!— from retirai dues is bad on account of the fact that the petitioner was noi afforded any opportunity of hearing before the impugned aciion was taken, aiso. 63 The Hon’bie Suoreme Court in the ease of Sahih Ram Vs. state of rtar’yana aha othersd‘ in para 5 has heiof as unset; This Court, in the case of Vidy‘aoihar Tiwari Vs. State of Chhattisgarh & othersa has. heici that for the exoese payment, if any, made to the oetitionei‘ he was not at iaait anti the amount received by hirn might have been used by adjusting himseif aooordingiy heating the same as his &! salary. At this stage, directing recovery of the aiEeged excess amount ffom the pensionary benefits of ihe petitioner Wm not bejust and waver. 9) in View of the masons mentioned hereinabove, ih§s eetition %s aiiowed. The impugned letier detee 31—7-2003 (Annexure Pi2)5 dhecting recevery a sum of Rs. 29,0CO/- en acccunt of excess payment made to the pe$i€ionen §s hereby quashed. The peiitioner is eniiiied 10 fuii pensionary benefitslgiaiui‘zv amount without any deduciion. if ii’se amount has been recoveied, ihe peiiiioner is entitied to the said amount wi‘ih inieresi at ‘ihe raie of 5% oer annum. However, it is open i0 the respondents to take iecouise to Reie 65 oi the Chhairtisgarh Civii Services (Pensian) Ruies, 1W6, if so acivised, in accordance with iaw ioiiowing basic princibies of natural jusiioe. No order asio costs. if Sdl- tSatish K. Agnihotri Judge 1