Q? IGH COURT OF CHEATTISGARH AT BILASP ‘Writ l’etition {S} N0. 232G of 2383 ETITIQNER : Ram Sunder Mishl'a S/o La'ée Badri Prasad, aged about 62 years R/ovillage: Saiaiya, Tahsil Simaur, District Rewa (MP). ’ VERSUS . State of Chhattisgafh; Thmngh Sgcrstaty; Department of Forest, Mantraiaya DKS Bhawan, Raipur (CG). Divisional Fm'est Office-r, Korea, Forest Divisién, Baikunthpur, Distt. Korea (CG). L 3. Accsauntant Genera! Raipur (CG). 4. Joint Director, Treasury and Pension Account Bilaspur (CG). 5. District Treasury Officer, Rewa District Rewa (MP). (WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA) (SB: Hon'ble Mr. Satish K. Agnihotri, J.) resent : Shn' Mahendra Dubey, Advocate for the petitioner. ESPONDENTS : ...r go Shri Y.S. Thakur, Deputy Advocate General for the State/respondent No. 1,2 & 4. Shri S.K. Beriwal, Standing Counsei for respondent N0. 3. ORAL 012mm (Passed on am i6“ day orJune, 2mm) . With the consent of !earned counsel appearing for the parties, the matter is taken up for hearing finally. . By this petition, the petitioner impugns the order dated l5.01.2008 (Annexare P/l ), whereby recovery for a sum of Rs. 65,414/—has been directed from the pensionary benefits of the petitioner. 3. The brief facts, in nutshell, are that the petitioner while working as Deputy Ranger retired on attaining the age of superaimuation on 28.02.2007. The petitioner was granted certain increments, which, according to the impugned order dated 15.G1.2008, were paid in eXcess. Learned counsel would further submit that the impugned order has been passed without following basic pririeiples of natural justice as no opportunity was ah‘orded to the petitioner’to put fonvard his case.” H UR P R P @. . Shri Y.S. Thakur, leamed counsel appearing for the state submits that the issue raised in this petition is squarely cQvered by a decision of the Supreme Court in the matter of Sahib Ram VS. State QfHaryana and athersl, and further followed by this Court in the matter of VidyWar Tiwan' Vs. 7723 State ofChhatiisgarh & Othersz. 5. Learned counsel for the respondents/State further submits that Rule 65 of the Chhattisgarh Civil Services (Peusion) Rules, 1976 (for short ‘the Rules, 1976’) provides for the‘purpose of reoovew from the pensionary amount, if excess payment or illegal payment has been made. 6. The contention of the petitioner that even for exercising power under Rule 65 of the Rules, 1976, basic principles of natural justice and fair play in action are required to be followed. In the present ease, the State/authorities have not afforded any opportunity of hearing to the petitioner to put forward his case asto why the deduction from the gratuity amount being excess amount cannot be made. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner merits accep .ee. 7. This Court, in the case of Vidyadhar Tiwaii (supra), has held that the excess payment, if any, made to the petitioner, he was not at fault and the amount received by him might have been used by adjusting himself accordingly treating the same as his salary. At this stage, directing recovery of the alleged excess amount from the pensionary benefits/gratuity amount of the petitioner may not be just and proper. ., ”l ’ l ‘i 1995 Supp u) scc 20 2 2006 m MPHT 105 (CG) (@, . In View of tha foregoing, this petition is allowed in the tenns of the ordcr passed in The case of Vidyadhar Tiwari (supra) i.e. the impugned letter dated 15.01.2008 (Annexure P/l) regarding recovery of amount &om the pensionary benefits and other dues ofthe petitioner on account of excess payment, is hereby quashed. The petitioner is entitled .to full pensionaxy benefits/gratuity amount without any deduction. However, it is open to the respondents to take recom'se to Rule 65 of the Rules, 1976, if so advised, in accordance with law, following basic principles of natural justice. No order asto costs.