••"3^^;ri^:iK ^p HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILA5PUR PETmONER RESPONDENTS WRrTPETITION (S} No. 4371 of2008 MilapSingh Sidar S/o Doulat Ram Sidar, Agcd about 67 years, R/o VUlage Gare, Post: Saraitola, Block : Tamnar, Distt - Raigarh (C.G.) VER8US 1. State of Chhattisgarh Through: The Secretary, Tribal Welfare Departmei^, D.K.S. Bhawaii, Raipur, District- Raipur (C.G.) 2. The Joint Director Treasury Accouutaat aiid Pension Bilaspur, District Bilaspur (C.G.) 3. Assistant Commissioner, Tribal Welfare Department, Raigarh, District Raigarh (C.G.) 4. Block Education Qfficer, Block—Taimtar, District Raigarh (C.G.) WRTT PETFTION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTrTUnON OF INDIA SB: Hon'ble Shri Satish K. Aenihotri, J. Present: Shri Sanjay Patel, Advocate for the petitioner. Shri Aran Sao, Govemment Advocate forfhe State/respondeats. OKALORDER (Passed on 11th day of August, 2008) Withthe consent ofthe parties, the matter istakaiupfQr hearing finally. The petitioner was appomted as an Assistarit Teacher on 01.07.1962 in fhe respondents department The petitioner retired from serviees on attaining the age of superamiuation on 30.11.2003. After his retirement, the petitioner received a letter dated 21.07.2004 (Annexure P/l) directing recoveiy a sum of Rs.19,128/- on account ofexcess payment made to the petitioner. 2) Leamed counsel appeariag for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was aot given any opportunity to explain the payment made to the petitioner. Thus, this order is vitiated for want ofcompliance oftfae prineiples ofnaturaljusticearid • fair play m-action. Lesuned counsel fiirther submits that fhere is no fault on the part of the petitioner and the amount is paid to hun in accordance with the pay scales, revised and fixed by the respondeiits from time to time. The respondents cannot recover the amount, alreadyp.aidtofhepetitionerafteThisretirenieiit, fhat too withoutfollowing the principles ofnaturaljustice. !iS 111 ^ -2- 3) Per contra, leamed counsel appearing for the respondents/State submits that it is true that noshow cause notice was given to the petitioner. The communications made between the ofBcers was endorsed to fhe 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 followea the principles of natural justice and the impugied action has been taken wilhout affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. The practice of passing order involvmg civil consequences without show cause notice or without affordmg an opportumty, is eondemned. Thus,fhis actiQnofdeductmgRs.l93l28/-fromretu-al duesisbadon account oftiie fact that the petitioner was not afforded any opportunity ofhearing before the impugned action was taken, also. 5) The Hon ble Supreme Court in the case of Sahib Ram Vs. State ofHaryana and others m. para 5 has held as under: "5. However, it is not on account ofany naisrepresentation made by the appellaat tliat the beaefit of higher pay scale was given to him but by wrong construction made by the Pmicipal for which fhe appellant camiot be held to be at fault. Under the cu-cumstances; the amount paid till date may not be reeovered fi-om the appellant." 6) The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case ofP. Tulsidas and others v. Govemment ofA.P. and others , observed that the benefit accroed earlier by way oferant ofMgher pay or revised pay, cannot be taken away as the same is violative of Article 14 and T6 offhe Constitution of hidia being arbitrary, unreasonable and expropriatory. 7) This Court, inthe case of Vidhadhar Ti-wari Vs. State ofChhattisgarh & olherf bas held fhat for the excess payment, ifany, made to fhe petitioner, 1995 Supp (i) SCC 20 2AIR.2003SC43 3 2006 (1) MPHT 105 (CG) ^^ .Aptit -3- he was not at fault and the amount received by him might have been used by adjusting himself accordingly treatins the same as his salary. At this stage, directing recovery ofthe alleged excess amount fi-om the pensionary benefits ofthe petitioner will not bejust and proper. 8) In view oflhe reasons mentioned hereinabove, tlus petition is allowed. The impugned letter dated 21.07.2004 (Annexure P/l) directing recovery a sum of Rs. 19,128/- on account of excess payment made to the petitioner, is hereby quashed. The petitioner is entitled to &11 pensionary benefits^gratuity amount without any deducticui. If the amount has been recovered, the petitioner is entitled to the said amount with interest at the i-ate of 6% per annum. However, it is open to tfae respondents to take recourse to Rule 65 of the Chhattisgarh Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1976, if so advised, in accordance with law followiag basic principles of natural justice. No order asto costs. Sd/- Satish K. Agnihotri Judge I'li'li! ^^ts1 Ita