Ei‘GH $G'U‘R? Di": CHHATTiSGAEi: BELASPU’R 2) SLaberintenrjiag Engmeer, Mahanatii Cimie, Waiea’ Resources Depaamenix Raipur {CG}. 31 The Exeaume Engineer, aier Reeewces Divisicn, Raipw (CG). 4 Execuiive Engmeer, Water Resources Diarrsion, Gariyeband, District Ra? ur (CG). 5) Drvisionai Joini iDirector, Treasury Accounts & Pension, Raipur, Distréct Raipur{CG). 8AM: Petition uneer Art§cie 226 of the Consiitutien of more}, erngie §ench : Hcn‘hie Mr. $ai'ish K. Agnihciré, J. ?resem : Shri RK. Kesharwani‘ counsei for ihe petrtioner. Shri Arun§ao. Gevt. Advocae for the Szate. 5mi. GREER §Faesed ora 15th dag! of February, 29%} With ihe consent of iearned counsei appearing for rise games, rhe matter is heard finaiiy. 2) The petit§oner was appointed as Overseer on 24-84%? in the Department of irrigation. ihe petitioner reiireo‘ from services on attaining the age of superannuation on 31-72%?” Afrer 'nis retirement, the peiitioner u received a ieiier dated 2§-8—2§i}7 (Annexure Pi3), directing recovery of a sum \ \\ of Rex} ,01 ,560l- on account of excess payment made to the petitioner. W Wri‘; Petition €$} No. $56 of 23% Petitier‘ier Bhupa? Kapse, aged 61 years, Sic Late Bhwaji Kapse, retired Assistarat Engineer, Frcm Ofa Executive Engineer: Water Rasaurce’s Divisien N92, Baieda Bazaf, District Raipm {CG}, Rfb NHG 3T. Housing 36am Caiony, Koia, Raigur. Distrkt Raipur {CG). Versus 1K Responciems 1} State af Chhai‘i:§sgarh! ihrough i'tS Semetary, Department cf Wmer Rescumes, Manéraiaysa, DK‘S. Bhawan} Eaipur. 3} Learned coansei appearing for ihe petiiioner submiis ‘kha‘i the petiiiener was not given any opportunity to expiain about the paymen: made i0 the petitioner. Thus, this order is vitiated for want of compiiance of the principies of natural justice and fair piav in-aciion. Learned counsei further submits mat there is no fauit on the par of the petitioner and the amount is paid to him rn accordance with the pay scaies, revised and iixed by the respondents from time to time. No reason has been assigned aste on whtoh count the excess payment, if any, was made. the respondents cannot recover the amount, aiready paid to the petitioner ai‘ier his retirement, that too Without Toiiown‘g *he pmmpies or natu a; ias’iice fr} Learned course! apneanno for the responderrsrState strornrtst true ihat no'show cause notrce was given to the petitioner. a he peé‘iiione: was not oa eu uoon to submit his exoiana n ror oavn‘eat of t e ed exoess payment and recovery thereaaer. prmCiQies of naturai justice and the impugned action has been taken without affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. The practice oi passing order invoiving civii consequences, Without show cause notice or without affording an opportunity, is condemned. Thus, this action of deducttng Rs.’t,Ot,58G/— on retire! dues is baa on account of tne fact that the pe...ioner was not arfordeo any opportunity of hearing before the impugned action was taken, 2&50. 6) The Hon’bie Sumeme Scuff in the case o§ Sahib Ram Vs. sate of Haryam arw oihels1 in para 5 has heid as Linde‘r: “5. However, §t is not 0n accouni oi“ misrepresentation made by the appeiia the benefit of higher pay scaie was given to him but wrong construction made by the Princioai to. w ion the aopetiant cannot oe heir; to tie at mutt. Under tne Circumstances, the amoun paid tiil date may not be recovered appeiiant.” §fom the 7) The Hon‘bie Sunreme Court in the case of P. Tuisidas and others v. Government of AP. and othersz, observed that the benefit accrued eariier by way ct grant of higher pay or revised pay, cannot be taken away as the same is vioiative of Articie 14 and tB'of the Constitution of india being afbiwaw, unreasonabie anci expropriatéw. 1%: bupp (3) C 2G MR 200.: QC 43 5) The respondent authorities have not foiiowed 8} This Court, in the case af Vidyadhar T§war% Vs. Staie af Qhhamsgarh & otheyss has heid that far the excess payment; if any, made to the petitioner, he was not at fault and the amount received by him m§ght have been used by adjustirag himseif accordingiy treating the same as his saiai‘y'. At we stage, difeciing recovery of the arieged excess amount from the pensionary benefits of the petitioner wiii not be just and proper. 9) in View of the reasons mentioned hereinabove, ihis petiiion is aiiowed. The impugned ietter dated 29-32%? (Annexure PE) directing recovery a sum of R31 ,01 ,560/— on account of excess payment made to 2he peiiiioner, is hereby quashed. The petitioner is eniitied to fuii pensionary benefits/gratuity amount without any deduction. if the amount has been recovered, the petitioner is entitied to the said amount with interest at the tate of 6% per annum. However, it is open to the resoondents to take recourse to Ruie 65 of the Chhattisgarh Ciyii Services (Pension) Ruies, i§?€, it so advised, in accordance with iaw foiiowing basic principies of naturai iustice. No order asto costs. Satish K. Agnihotri 'i r r Judge i sd/_ Gowri 3 2006 (r) MPHT 105 (co)