l'^,^! yw •V Petitioner ResBondente HSOH COURT OF CHHATTISQARH: BILASPUR Writ Petition iS] No. 1SS9 of2008 Prem Shankar Dubey, S/o Late Shri Shyam Sundar Shankar Dubey, aged about 65 years, R/o village Darakharika, Post Narayanpur, Tahsi! Kunkuri, Disirict Jashpur (CG). Versus 1) State of Chhattisgarh, through Secretary, Tribal WsRare J3spartmsnt, DKS Bhawan, Raipur (CG). 2) The Joint Director, Accounts, Treasury and Pension, Bslaspur (CG). 3) The Assistant Direcior, Triba) WeSfare Department, Raigarh (CG). 4) Biock Educatipn Oflteer, Kuniairi, District (Writ Petition under Articte 226 ofttie Constitution of India) SB: Hon'bie Mr. Satish K. Agnihobl, J. Present: Shri S.K. Tiwari, counsel for the petitioner. Ms Smfta Ghai, Panel Lawyer for tt)e State. ORAL ORDER (Passed on thas 1a day of May,2009) 1. At the very outset, leamed counsei appearing for the petitloner, on instructions, submits that She petitioner does not want to press the reiief ciauses 7.3 and 7.4 of the petition, however, he seeks liberty to file a separate writ peUtion for relief as prayed for in clause 7.4 of the in^ant petition. 2. It is ordered, as prayed for. The relief clauses 7.3 and 7.4 of the pefition are dismissed, as not pressed with the aforesaid liberfy. 3. By this petition, the petitioner impugns the order dated 19-9-2005 (Annexure P/2) whereby it has been directed to deduct a sum of Rs.30,992/- as excess payment made to the petitioner, from the pensionary benefits. "4. Shri Tiwari, iearned counsei appearing for the petitioner, submiis that ttie petitioner retired from the post of l-1ead Master on 31-7-2005 and after the retirement the impugned order has been passed by the respondent authoritles. Learned counsei further submiis that the petitioner is entitled to relief in view of the weil settled principles of law, as observed in several decisions of the Supreme Court as well as of this Court. 2-- 8. Gowri Ms. Ghai, learned Panel Lawyer appearing on behalf of the State, submits that since the peUtioner has given an undertaking to mate payment of excess amount, it was not necessary to issue further notice and afford an opportunity of hearing. The issue asto whether recovery of excess payment can be made without following principles of natural justice is no !onger res integra, the same has been setUed by the Supreme Court in Sahib Ram v. Stats of Haryana and offiers, and further followed by this Court in Vidyschar Tiwari v. The State of Chha .sgarh & 0#?ers2 and in Vidya Shar^ar T!wari v. Stats of M.P. (Ncw Siate of ChhaWsga/ts) and offier/ and thereafter foliowed in severat decisions. In the instant case. ihe impugned order has been passed without affording any opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. !t appears that the Stete/respondente has completety ignored the law !aid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Shyam Babu Verma and offwrs y. Union oflndia & Others , while taking such step and as such, stand of the respondent-authorities is not susteinable. Any order invoivlng eivil (evil) consequences cannot be passed without affording an opportunity of hearing to the employee. In view of the foregoing and as admitted by teamed counsel appearing for the parties, this petition is allowed in the terms of the order passed in Vidyac^iar T'mari (supra) i.e. the impugned order dated 19-9-2005 (Annexure P12} regarding recovery of Rs. 30.992/- from the retiral dues of the petitioner is hereby quashed. The petitioner is entitted to fuil pensionary benefits/gratuity amount witheut any deduction. if the said amount is aiready deducted from the gratuity, the same shail be payable to the petitioner with simple interest @ 6% per annum. However, it ts open to the respondents to take recourse to Rute 65 of ttie Chhattisgarh Civii Services (Pension) Rules, 1 976, if so advised, in accordance with law, after Tollowing basic principles of natural justice. No order asto costs. _ Sd/- SatishK.Agnihotn 11995 Supp (1) SCC 18 "2006 (1)MPMT 105 (CQ) 3 2006 (2) MPHT 31 fCG) 4(1^4)2SCC521