FA .-! -t <-• HIGH COURT OF C'HHATTISGARH AT BHASPUR PETITIONER Wnt_Petition No,1818. Laklian Lal Mishra S/o Late Vijay Shankar Mishra, aged aboirt 72 years, R/b Badamath, Ward No. 6, Talisil Saraiigarh, District Raigai-h (CG). RESPQTTOENTS ; I. State ofChhattisgarh Through Secretar;', Department of Urban Plamiing and Deveiopment, DKS Bhawan. RaipU2-(CG): 2. The Deputv Director (Pension), Directorate Urban Plaiuiing and Development, Chliattisgarh, Raipur 3. Chief Municipal Officer, Municipal Council of Sarangarh, District Raigarh (CG). (WRFT PETmON LTNDER ARTICLE 226/227 OF THE CONSTrTOTION OF INDIA) (SB: Hon'ble Mr. Sattsh K. Agnihotri, J.) Pregent : Shri S.K, Tiwari, Advocate for the petitioner. Shri Alok Bakhshi, Govt. Advocate for the State. ORALORDER (Passed on 19"' day ofJuiie, 2008) 1. With the coiisent of the leamed couassl appearing for tiie parties, the matter is taken up for hearing fiaa!ly. 2. By this petition, the petitioner impugns tfae order dated 14.06.2000 (Annexure P/3), whereby the petitioner was directed to deposit back a sum of P-s. 20,928/-, which was paid in excess, and order dated 29.05.2004 (Amiexure P/4), whereby a sum ofRs. 23,556/- was directed to be recovered from the pension ofthe petitioner, w.e.f. June, 2004. 3. The brief facts, in nutsheU, are that the petitioner was appointed as Lecturer on 09.11.1964 at Municipal Higher Secondar;r Schooi, Sarangarh. Subsequent!;', he was promoted on the post of Principal vide order dated 28.12.1989 (Annexure P/2) aad started dischai-ging functions of tiie Principal from 29.12.1989- The petitioner, while working as Principal, retired from sen'ices oa attaining the age of superamiuatioa on 28.02.1994. By order dated 14.06.2000 (Anaexrre P/3), the petitioner was directed to deposit a sum of P-s. 20,928'-, as excess payment was made to the petifioner, and suhsequently, by order dated 29.05.2004 J --Jl^-f 4 6. (Aiuiexure P/4), a sum of Rs. 23,556/- was directed to be recovered jrom the peiis'oa, oa account of excess paytEsiit ciade to tlie petitioaer. The Supreme Court, in tiis matter of Kailash Singh v. State of Bihar and others obser.ed that," the respoadents look v«'ork fi-om the appellaiit without asiy dispute. He would obviousfy be entitled to his salar)' and tliere is tio reason as to why he should be denied the post- retiral benefits." The identical issue has been considered by this Court in the matter of Vidyadhar Tiwari Vs. The State of Chhattisgarh & others and farther followed in the matter ofBal Ki-ishna Mishra Vs. State of Chhattisgai-h and others (W.P.(S) No. 3412/07). Learned counse! appearing for the State/respondents submits tiiat this case is square'y covered by the decisioas ofthis Court (supra), thus, this case may also be allowed in the same tenns. This Court, in the case of Vid}'adhai- Tiwafi (supra) has held that the excess payment, ifany, made to tiie petitioner, he was not at fault and the amount received by him might have been used by adjustmg himself accordingly treatmg the saaie as his salaiy. At tliis stage, directing recovery of tlie alleged excess amount from the pensionary benefits/gratuity amount ofthe petitioner will not bejust and proper. In view ofthe foregomg and as adm'tted by leamed counsel appearinj for botfa tfae parties, this petition is allowed in the tenns of the order passed in flie case ofV'dyadhar Tiwari (supra) i.e. the impugned order dated 09.12.2005 (A^nexure P/3) and 29.05.2004 (Annexure P/4), directing to recover^' ofamonnt from the gratuity aad other dues ofthe petitioner on account of excess payment, are hersby quashed. The petitioser is entitied to fu'l pensiocar}' benefits/gratuity amount n'ithout any deduction. However, the respondents may take recourse to Rule 65 ofthe P^ules, 1976, if so advised, in accordance with law and basic principles ofnaturaljustice. No order asto co^ts Sahu ;ZOU5(13)SCC576 22006ri)MPHT105rcG) Sd/- Satish K.Agnihotri Judge ..^-"