..,,^^ ^&%> ^^ R3S , ^..( ^.°.•^•••^9^y-"~ . ^^ >^' ^ ^^.A..-"" ^^•' IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR. W.P.(S)No. .0.3^ OF 2009 PETITIONER .\y s," « Naresh Chandra Sondhi, aged about 65 years, Son of late J.R.Sondhi, R/o. HIG-27, Padamnabhpur, Durg, Post, Tahsil and District Durg (C.G.) Versus RESPONDENTS if State of Chhattisgarh Xrfr^c^i'^f\ •^^^M^y^ '::.^.>.~^;..,...-^A^ •^^ through Secretary Departnient of^ ^ducation, DKS Bhavan, Raipur Raipur (C.G.) 2) The Executive Engineer KALLO PROJECT, Bilaspur, Tahsil and District Bilaspur (C.G.) 3) "^hief Engineer, Hasdev-Bango Minimata Project, Bilaspur, Tahsil and District Bilaspur (C.G.) 4) Engineer -In-Chief, Irrigation Departinent, Raipur, Tahsil and District Raipur (C.G.) 5) The Treasury Officer, Durg, District ^ Durg (C.G.) 6) The Collector, Durg, District Durg ^ (C.G.) 7) Joint Director (Treasury) Account and Pension, Bilaspur Division, District Bilaspur (C.G.) WRET PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA ^- ^ HIGtt COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WRTT PETmON (S) No. 5936 OF 2009 PETmONER RESPONDENTS Naresh Chandra Sondhi. VER8US State ofChhattisgarh & Others. WMT PETmON UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CQNSTrTUTION OF INDIA SB: Hon'ble Shri Satish K. Asnihotri, J. Prcsent: Shri Saiitosh Yadu, Advocate torthQ petitioner. Shri A.V.Shridhar, Panel Lawyer forthe State/respondetrts. ORDERrORAL) (Passed on 20th day ofOctober, 2009) With the consent ofleamed counsel appearing for the parties, the inatter is heard finally. 1. Tfae petitioner impugns the order dated 22nd May, 2009 (Annexure P/l) on the ^ound that aii amount ofRs. 1^91358/- has beendeducted from the retiral dues ofthe petitioner. 2. Shri Yadu, leamed counsel appearing for the petifioner submits that the issue asto whether recovery of excess payment caii be made without following prmciples ofnaturaljusticeis no longer res integra, the same has been settled by the Supreme Court in the matter of Sahib Ramv. State ofHaryana and others1, and lurther followed bythis Court in Ihe matter ofVidyadhar Tman v. TheState of CMiattisgarh &0thers oxid Vidya Shankar Tiwari v. State ofM.P. (Now State ofChhattisgarh) and 2 1995 Supp (l)SCC 20 220Q6(l)^1PHn05(CG) ^ •^ L- others . Li tiie instant case, tiie impugned order faas been passed without affording any opportunity ofliearing to the petitioner. 3. Shri A.V.Shridhar, leamed Panel Lawyer does not controvert the allegation that no opportunity of hearing was afforded before the inipugned orders were pass^l. However, he relies on Rule 65 of the Chhattisgarh Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1976 (fbr short 'the Rules, 1976') for the purpose ofrecovery and adjustment ofGoveniment dues. 4. The contention ofthe petitioner that even for exercising power under Rule 65 ofthe Rules, 1976; basicprmciples ofnatural justice and fair play m action are required to be followed. In the present case, the State/authorities have not afforded any opportunity of hearing to the petitioner to put forward his case asto why the deduction from the gratuity amount being excess amount camiot be mad^. The contention of the leamed counsel for the petitioner merits acceptaiice. 5. This Court, in the c^e of Vidyadhar Tiwari (supra), has held that the excess payment, if any, made to the petitionen he was not at fault and the amount received by him might'have been used by adjusting himself accordingly treatmg the Same as his salary. At this stage, directing recoveiy of the alleged excess amount froni the pensionary benefits/gratiiity amount ofthe petitioner will not be just and proper. 6. In Syed Abdul Qadir & others v. State ofBihar & Others , the Supreme Court observed that excess payment of emoluments/allowances caimot be recovered ifthe excess amount was not paid on account of any mis- representation or fraud on the part ofthe employee and if such excess 3 2006 (2) MPHT 31 (CG) 4(2009)3SCC475 /.' payment was made by the employer by applying a wrong principle for calculating the pay/allowances or on the basis of a particular inteipretation of mle/order, which is subsequently found to be erroneous. 7. It is not the case ofthe respondents that the excess payment has. been made to the petitioner on account ofany mis-representation or fraud on the part ofthe petitioner. The excess payment might have been made by wrong calculation or wrong interpretation of the provisions of law, if any. 8. In view ofthe foregoing and for the reasons stated hereinabove, this petition is allowed. The impugtied order 22nd May, 2009 (Annexure P/l) regarding recovery of Rs. 1,91358A from the retiral dues ofthe petitioner is hereby quashed. The petitioner is entitled to ftill pcnsiona^ benefits/gratuity amount without any deduction. If the said amount is already deducted, the same shall be payable to the petitioner with simple interest @ 6% per annum. No order asto costs. Sd/- SatishK.Agiuhotri Judge Anut