’ HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BHASPUR W.P.(S )No. 6&6; /2009 ,‘ x ' Narayan Prasad Sahu S/o~ Shri Ghanaram Sahu, Aged about 63 years, R/o.- Village Goplinchuwa & P.O. - /‘nW» BEFORE HONBLE PETITIONER \ ‘ Chowkj District- Rajnandgaon (0G) VERSUS RESPONDENTS (/ 1) State of Chhattisgarh, Through Secretary, school Education Department, D.K.S. Bhawan, Rafpur (C.G.) ,/2) District Education Officer, Rajnandgaon, Coiiectorate, District— Rajnandgaon (C.G.) 3) Divisional Joint Director, Directorate of Treasury, Accounts and Pension Department, Raipur (5.6.) K4) Block Education Officer, (Drawing and Disbursing Officer), Block Ambagarh ChoWki, District~ Rajnandgaon (C.G.) WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA. w r \Ar V. agmw 90) H§GH CGURT CF CHHATTISGARH : BILASPUR WRIT aaETi‘HCN (S) NQ§GS3 OF 2909 PETiTiONER Na ayan PraSad Sahu Versus Siate 0f Chhaftisaarh & Oihers €Writ petitien unéer Artida 225 Qf the Cansmutian of india) SEngie Bench : Hnn’bie shri $a§ish K. Agnéhotrig J. i sem - Sim Beseni Bewengen, counsei fer ihe peiiiiener. ;u RESPONEENTS 3 e Shri ‘{.S. Thakur,‘ Dy. AG with 5m AV. Sridhay, FL f9! the Staie. GRDER {ORAL} {Passed an th3s 23‘3 day {2f Oambea 2 With the cansent 0f Seameé ceunse} appearmg f0: ihe asartées, ihe petition is heard iinaiiy. Bv ihis aetiiion ihe aeiiiimer imauqns ihe arder daied 31-1°-2D§8 iAnnexure W3) passed by ihe 'espondent Nu3 w ereby a sum sf Rs 3§ 210i- has been deducteé iwidmq ii ta be excess pqvmeni nude is tne neimmer fmm his retirai (mes Learnea counsei appearinq for ‘he pet: inner submiis mat the issue asta whether recovew of excess sayme . car} be made without feiicwmg prmcipaes of naiurai gusiice is no ionger res Integra, the same has been seitied by ihe Supreme Court in Sahib Ram v. Siaze 9f Hawana and oihersi, and further feiiowea by this Cour: in Vidyaehar Tfwaif m The Siate of Chhatfisgafh & Offiersz & Viaya Shankar Ti‘wart‘ v. State ef MP. Wow Siate 0f cehaifisqam) am“? Others", in ihe insiam ease, ihe irrpugued o de. Ms been p seed wiihoui affording my appoeuni’i‘y of hearmg to the peiiiwnei. Learned ceunsei appearing fer the Siaie suhmiis ihai ii is noi ciear asie whether opgarierrity of hearing was afferded before the impugned erder was passed. Hewever ieamed ceunsei reiies en Ruie 55 of tire Ciihaiiisgarh Civr SerVices (Perislen Ru es 1975 (fur she": ‘ihe Ru; 3375’) for *he m! ease of recevery and adjusimem of cavernrr‘eni dhSe. The cententiorz ef the eeritioner ihai ever; fer exercising power under Rule $5 ei ihe Ruies, i9?6g basic princieies of naiurai ius‘iice aed fair piay in aciion are reeuired ie be feliowed. in ihe present case. ii aepears iha! ihe Siaieiauiheriiies have nei afforéed any epeeriuniiy ef iieering in ‘ upp (1) eCL; 2U 2006 m \APHT 105 (CG) 2006 i MPHT 31 (be, N) !t L ‘ ieeb e “ (2 , gm ErTGHQQHS. u \ ihe petiiioner to put fanNard his case ask) why ihe dewcticn from the gratuify amount being excess amauni cannoi be made. The conientisn of ihe ieameé ceunse§ for ihe petitioner meriis acceptance. Th§s Court, in Wdyadhar Tiwari {supra}, has held mat ihe excess payment if any, made to the gaetitioner, he was not at feuit and the amount received by him might have been useei by adjusiing himseif accorciingiy treating the same as his saiary, At this stage, directing i recevery of ’the aiieged excess amount from the pensienary benefits/graiuity amount of ihe peiiiienei' wiii noi be just and pioper. 7. in syed Abdu: Qadir ahd others v. State of Bihar & Oiners", the Supreme Cour: has observed that excess payment of emoiumentsi aiiowanoes cannot be recovered if the excees amount was nei paid or: accouni ei any misrepreseniaiion or fraud on the eeri of the empioyee and if such excess payment was made by ihe empioyer by appiying a wrong principie for caieuiaiing ihe payiaiiowances er en ihe basis ef a pariiouiar inierpretaiion oi ruiefom‘er. which is subsequemiy found io be 8. it is not ihe case of ihe respendenis ihai the excess payment has been made to ihe peiitiener on account of any mis—represeniation or irauo‘ on ihe part of the peiiiioner. The excess payment might have been made by wrong caicuiation or wrong inierpreiaiion oi ihe provisions of law, if any. Thus, ihe peiiiioner is entitled io fuil reiirai benefits without any deduciion/adjustment of excess goayment and the employer is no! entitied to recover any excess amount from ihe reiirai dees of ihe \i peiiiioner, pariioulariy aiier a period oi five years of retirement. 3. in View of foregoing and as admitied by learned counsei appearing for ihe parties! ihis peiiiion is eliowed in ierrns of the order oassed by this Court in Vidyadhar Tiwari {supra} i.e. the impugned order dated 3142-2003 (Annexure W3) deducting a sum of Rs.39,2ii)i— from the retirai dues of the oetitioner is hereby quasneti. The eeiitioner is entitied to full pensionarv’benefitsfgratuity amount without any deduction. if the said amount is aireaciy deducted from the gratuity, the same shalt be payabie to the petitioner with simpie interest @ §%\per ennum from the date it became due iiii the payment is made. No oroer asto costs. Sd/_ a g Satish K. Agnihotri i < ' Judge $ubbu A‘ ratios) ,, -- a - buM/o N.‘ ...- "i a awe Woewwwj! \\