PetlUoner HIGhLCOURTOF CHHATTISGARH: BILASPUR WntPetitjon (Sl Np. 4344 of 2008 Lalit Kumar Naik, S/o Late Kusawa Naik, aged about61 years, R/o viliage & Post Aamgaon, BiockTamnar, Distt. Raigarh(CG). " Respondente Versys 1) State of Chhattisgarh through the Sscrstar/, Pubtic Health & Fami!y Welfare Department, D.K.S. Bhawan, Raipur, District Raipur (CG). 2) The Joint Director, Treasury Accountart and Peftsion, Bilaspur, Disirict Bilaspur (CG). ' 3) Chief Medical Officer, Raigarh, District arh (CG). CWrit Petition under Articte 226 of the Constitution of India.) Single Bench: Hon'ble Mr. Satlsh K. Agnihotri, J. Present: Shri Sanjay Patel, counsel for the petitioner. Smt. Smita Ghai, Panel Lawyer for the State. ORALORD6R (Passed on 8 dayof August,2008) The petitionerwas appointed as HeatthAssistant on 20-3-1^8 in the respondents department. The petitioner retired from services on attaining the age of superannuation on 30-6-2007. After his retirement, the petitioner received a tetter dated 24-10-2007 (Annexure P/1) directtng recovery of a sum of Rs.23,732/- on account of excess payment madeto the petitioner. 2) Leamed counsel appearing for the petiUoner submite that the petitioner was notgiven any opportunitytoexplainhiscase.Thus, thisorder is vitiated for want of compliance of the principtes of natural justice and fair play in-action. Learned counsel further sybmits ttiat there is no fautt on the part of the petitioner and the amount is paid to him inaccordance with the pay scales, revised and fixed by the respondents from time to time. The respondents cannot recover the amount, already paid to the petitioner after his retirement, that too without foltowing We princlples of haturaljustice. " .— v^ 3) Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the respondents/State submits that it is true that no show cause notice was given to ttie petWoner. The communications made between the officers was endorsed to the petitioner. The petitioner was not called upon to submit his explanation for payment of alleged excess payment and recovery thereafter. 4) The respondent authorities have not followed the principles of naturat justice and the impugned action has been takert without affording an opportunityof hearing to the petitioner. The practice of passingorder invoh/ing civil consequences without show cause notlce or without affording an opportunity, is condemned. Thus, this action of deducting Rs.23,732/- from retiral dues is bad on account of the fact that the petitioner was not afforded any opportunity of hearing before the impugned action was taken, aiso. ! 5) The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Sahib Ram Vs. State of Haryana and others in para 5 has held as under: "5. However, it, is not on account of any misrepresentation made by the appellant that th? bensfit of higher pay scate was ghren to him but by wrong construction made by the Principal for which theappeilant cannot be heid to be at fault. Under thecireumstances, the amount paid till date may not be recovered from the appellgnt." 6) The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of P. Tulsidas and others v. Government of A.P. and others2, observed that frie beneftt accmed eartier by way of grant of higher pay or revised pay, cannot be taken away as the same is viotative of Article 14 and 16 of ttie Constitution of India being arbitrary, unreasonable and expropriatory. 7) This Court, in the case of Vidhadhar Tiwari Vs. State of Chhattisgarh & others has heid that for th®excess payment, if any, made to the pet'rtioner, hewas not atfault and the amountreceivec! by him might have been used by adjusting himselfaccordingly treating the same as his salary» At this stage, directing recovery of the alleged excess amount from the pensionary benefits of the petitioner will not be just and proper. 8) In view of the reasons mentioned hereinabove, this petitlon is allowed. The impugned letter dated 24-10-2007 (Annexure P/1) directing l1995Supp(1)SCC20 2AIR2TO3SC43 32006(1)MPHT105(CG) S9B R KK Blll 1)1 III Itiil "1§;SM 'ffiEisl ti:l'ii.j 1111 ia'^ aSpnf Woqing^^qspg^ -yps •s|soo o»sejspjo ON 'soiisnf [Bjnieu i<s ssidiouud aiseq BUWODO^ MB| L|}I souepjoooe ui 'pssiApe os ji 'gzst 'seiny (uojsuBej) saoiAjas IIAJO yjeBsineyyo sq} jo 59 s|ny 0} esjnoaej si|ei 0} siuepuodsaj sifl o^ usdo si (j 'jeASMOH 'ujnuue jad %9 10 siej sifl »eissjstui 4}i* lunoiue pies syi 01 pemua si jsuoiued eift 'pejieAooej usaq SBI) tunoiue eifl ^ -uoipnpsp AUB tnoytim lunouue AiiniejB/siysueq Aieuoisued iiry o»psRguesi jsuoBiiad 941 •psysenb Aqejsy si 'jsuogssd sift o^ epeui tusuiAed ssaoxe p lunoooe uo -/ze/'ez'sy ^o uins e AJSAooai UMog •^.-