COURT OF C TT'ser^ 1-'T IS^. W.-it Petitlon.fS) No.1543 of ^U.uysi Mangtoo Ram Sarthi, S/o Late Paltan Sarthi, aged about 64 years, Retired Upper Division Teacher, R/o village Posi Auarda, BIock Pusour, Disft. Raigarh (CG). 1) State of Chhattisgarh, throuah the Secretary, Schoot Education Department, D.K.S. Bhawan, Ralpur 2) The Joint Dirsctor, Tr Accountant ana' Pensson, Bitespur, Dist. iiiaspur (CG). 3) The District Education Officer, Dist. Rai.garh (CG). I) The Principai, Govt. Mock Pusour, Distt. Rajgarh ,'S-l.^i\ i,vu/. (Writ Petition underArticie 226 ofthe Constitutjon of Indi'a.') nale ihotn, J. sent: Mr. Sanjay Patei, counsei for the petitioner. Mr. M.P.S. Bhatia, Dy. Govt. Advocate for the State. Al i [Passed on 2.3'u day of March, Vrfith the consent of learned counsei aoDearing for the Darties, the matter is heard fina'iy. 2) The petitioner whiie working as Upper Dlvision Teache.r in respondents' department retire-d from seroices after attaining the age of 'Superannuation on 30-4-2006. Thereafter, the petitioner received a ietter dated 7-8-2006 (Annexure P/2), directing recovery of a sum of Rs. 92.784/- on account of excess payment made to the petitioner. 3) Learned counsei appearing for the pstitioner submits that the petitioner vras not given any opporSunlty to expiain about She payment made to the petitioner. Thus, this order is vitiated for want of compiiance of the princlpies of naturai justice ana' fair piay in-action. Learnsd counsei further submits that thsre is no fauit on the part of the petitioner and the amouni is paid to him in accordance with the pay scaies, revised and fixed by the respondents from time to time. No reason has been assigned asto on which count the excess payment, if any, was made. The respondents cannot recover the amount, aiready paid to the petitioner after his retirement, that too without following the principles of naturai justice. 4) Learned counsel appearing for the respondents/State submits that it js true that no show cause notice was given to ths petitioner. The petitioner was not calied upon to submit his expianation for payment of alieged excess payment and recovery thereafler. 5) The respondent authorities have not foliowed the principies of nsturai justiee and the impugned action has been taken vyithout affording an opportunlty of hearing to the petitioner. The practice of.'passing order invoivjng civii consequences, without show cause notice or v/ithout affordin^ an Qpportunity, is condsmned. Thus, this sction of deducting Rs. 32,784.'- from retiral duss is bad on account of the fact that the petitioner was not afforded any opportunity of hearing before the impugned act'ion v"as taken, aiso. 5) The Hon'bie Supreme Court in the case of Sahlb Ram Vs. State of Haryana and others' jn para 5 has heid as under: "5. Howevsr, re is not on account of any rrsisrepressnSatIon made by ths appellant that the benefit of higher pay scaie was gi'/en to hlm but by wrong construction made by the Principai for v/hich the appeilant cannot be held to be at fault. Under the circumstances, the amount paid tii! date may not be recovered from the appeiiant." . 7) The Hon'ble Supreme Court In the case of P. Tuisidas and others v. Sovernment of A.P. and others', observed that the benefit accrued eariier by v/ay of grant of h.igher pay or revised pay, cannot be taken avi/ay as the A.,same is vioiative of Arttde 14 and 16 of the Constltutlon cf indla bein! arbitrary, unrsasonabie and expropriatory. itafe 8) This Court, in the case of Vis Chhattisgarh & others has heid that for the excess payment, if any, made to the petitioner, he v»as not at fauit and the amount received by him might :1y85Supp(1)SCC20 •''AJR2003SC43 320Qs(15MPHT105(CG; have been used bv adjusting himseif accordinalv treatina the same as his saiary. At this stage, directing recovery of the alleged excess amount from the pensionary benefits ofthe petitioner wi!i not bejust and proper. 3) . !n view ofthe reasons ment'oned hereinabove, this petition is aliowed. 'he i'mpugned letter dated 7-8-2006 (Annexure P/2), di'racting recover/ a sum of Rs. 92,784/- on account of excess payment made to ths petltioner, is hereby quashed.. The petitioner is entitled to fuli pensionary benefits/gratuity amount without anv deduction. If the amount has been recovered, the petitioner is entitied to the said amount with interest at the rate of 6% per annum. However, it is open to the respondents to take recourse to Rule 65 of the Chhattisgarh Civi! Services (Pension) Rules, 1976, if so advised, in accordance with iaw foliowing basic principtes of naturai justice. No order ^ SdA SatisfaK.Agnihotri uown Judge t:1i: !:• •: .: • ' •