'•at; '•lii;s> ^ '^^ '•/'/•'^.'^ HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WRIT PETITION (S) No. 1961rf2009 PETmONER RESPONDENTS : 1 2. Ramecyal Pandey s/o Shri Dwarika Prasad Pandey, aged about 65 yeais, R/o Ward No. 1, Sarhar Road. Bamdwaj, Distt. Janjgir- Chatnpa (C.G.) VERSUS State of Chhattisgarh, Ttffough Secretary, Education Department, D.K.S. Bhawaii, Raipur(C.G.) Divisioual Jomt Director, Treasury Accoiuit and Pension, Bilaspur, Distt. Bilaspur (C.G.) WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTm-TITON OF INDIA SB: Hon'ble SInn Satlsh K. ABnitootn, J. Present: Shri Somkant Venua, Advocate for the petitioner. Shri Y.S.Thakur, Dy. Advocate General forthe State/respondents. ORAL ORDER (Passed on 15n day of April, 2009) With the consent ofthe parties, the matter is heard linally. By this petition, the petitioner impugns the order dated 09.02.2005 (Annexure P/l) passed by the respondent No. 2 whfireby it has been directed to deduct a sum of Rs. 26,297/- as excess payment made to the petitioner, from the pensionary benefrts. Shri Verma, leamed counsel appearing for the petitioner submrts that the issue asto whether recovery of excess payment can be made without following principles ofnatural justice is no longer res integra, the same has been settled by the Suprenie Court in the matter of Sahib Ram v. State of Haryccna and other^, and lurther followed by this Court in the inatter of Wyadhar Tiwari v. The State of Chhattisgarh & Othersi and Vidya Shankar Ti-wari v. State ofM.P. (Now State qfChhatfsgarh) and offfSr^. In the instant case, the impugned order has been passed without affording any opportunity ofhearing to the petitioner. !1995Supp(l)SCC20 •;2006(I)MPHT105(CG) 32006(2)MPHT31(CP'' 2 fiWl 4. Shri Thalair, leamed Deputy Advocate General does not controvert the allegation that no opportunity ofhearing was afforded before the impugned orders were passed. However, he relies on Rule 65 ofthe Chhattisgarh Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1976 (for short 'the Rules, 1976') for the pmpose ofrecovery and adjustment ofGovemmeirt dues. 5. The contention oflhe petitionerthat even tbr exereising power unda- Rule 65 ofthe Rules, 1976, basic principles ofnatural justice and fair play in action are required to be followed. In the present case, th& State/authorities have not aftorded any opportumty of hearing to the petitioner to put forward his case asto why the deduction from the aratuity amount hemg exeess amount cannot be made. The contention ofthe leamed counsel for tfae petitioner merits acceptance. 6. This Court, in the case of Vidyadhar Tiwari (supra), has held ttet the excess pavment. if anv, made to the petitioner, he was not at tault and the amount received by him might have been used by adjusting himsetf accardingly treating the same as his salary. At tfais stage, directing recovery ofthe alleeed excws amount fiwm the pensionary benefits/gratuity amount ofthe petitioners will not be just and proper. 7. In view ofthe foregoing aad as admitted by leamed counsel appearing for the parties, this petition is allowed in the tenns ofthe wder passed in flie case ofVidyadhar Tiwari (supra) i.e. the impugned ®rderdated 09.02.2005 (Annexure P/l) regarding reeovery of Rs. 26,297/- from the retiral dues of the petitioner is herebv quashed. The petitioner is entitled fo fall pemioriary benefits/yatuity amount without any deduction. If the said amount is atoeady deducted from the gratuity, the same shall be payable to the petitioner with simple interest @ 6% per annum. However, it is open to the respondents to take recourse to Rule 65 oftfae Rules, 1976, ifso advised, in accordance with law, after followmg basic principles ofnatiiral justice. No order asto costs. Sd/- Satish K. Agnihotri Judge Amit