^ c^\^ l^. @ SfngleBench IN THEffiGH COURT OF JUDICATURE &F CHHATTISGARH ATBILASPUR W.P.fS.} N0. -^SK^/2009 PETITJONES: Hari Rain Patel Retd Health Assistant ^"" ^~ '" ~' ~ '~'^ S/0 Paras Ram Patel, ^ V J!^^^ ^y A^>y Aged about 65 years, 10^'[/^"" ^' R/o WUage SaUhabfaatha, Post Tamnar, Block Tamnar, District Raigarh (C.G.) ..•&" ^..^-" ^ RESPONDENTS VERSUS f. State of Chhattisgarh: Thrpugh Tfae Secretary, Public HeaMr & FamUy Welfate Departmentr D.K.S. Bfaawaa, Raipur tC.f^ Tfa.e Joint Direetor Treasury AcGountant and Pension ^BiiaspurrDfeiErietBitespur^C-O^ •^' • ~ Chief MedicaL Officpr, Raigarh,,: Disfefct J'teigarh (C.Q.) WRIT_ PETmON UNDER ARTICLE 226 OP THE CQNS33TI.J3SQ QF JNDIA FQR ISSUANCE OF WRFF IN NATUKE^ QF _MAMDAMEI:S CERTIG'RAEY OK ANY QTHER^inLOFUKENATUREETC. The. petitioner most faum^ and respectfiuUy te to submit as under: 1) PARTICULARSQFTHi&PE'FI'nONER^ As stated in eause title above. II^ILlli KlB O-S HIGHCOURTOF CHHATTISGARH : BILASPUR WRIT PETITION CS) N0,3632 OF 2009 PETITIONER HariRamPatei RESPONDENTS Vereus State ofChhattisgarh & Others (Writ petition underArticte 226 ofthe Constttuiion of india) Single Bench : Hon'bleShriSatish K. Agnihotri, J. Present:- Shri D.R. Patel.counsel for the petitioner. Ms Sunita Jaih, Panel Lawyer for the State. ORDERfQRAL) (Passed on Ihis 1tf" <iay of September, 2009) 1. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. By this petition, the petjtioner impugns the orderdated-17-8-2007 -;(Annexure.<E"2) passee' by the respondffltt No.2, whereby a sum of j^:—. ••.., ,. .'-^, ., . " . . ;, • . . .. ^.- .. •... : ,,•• . •. . ^ .. ^ .-. ;.. ^. Rs.34,492/- has been deducted holding it to be excess payment made to the petitioner, ftom his retiral dues. 3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the issue asio whether recovery of excess payment can be made vwthout following principlesof naturaljustice i&nolongerresMegra.thesame has been settled by the Supreme Court in Sahib Ram v. State of Haryana and ottiers , and further followed by this Court in Vidyadhar Tiwari v. The State ofChliaWsgarh & Others^ & Vli^a Stiankar Tlwart v. State of M.P. (Naw State of Ctihattlsgali) and otfiei^. In the instant case, tha impugned order has been passed without affording any opportunity of hearing to Ihe petitioner. 4. Learned counsel appearirg for the State does not controvert the allegation that no opportunity of hearing was afforded before the impugned ordera were passed. Howeyer, learned counsel relies on Rule 85 of the Chhattisgarh Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1976 (for short Ihe Rules, 1976') for the purp(»e of recovery and adjustment of Government dues. 5. The stand of the respondent-State is that since the order has been passed by the respondent No.2, no opportunity of hearing is required. 6. The stand taken by the State is contrary to the well settled pnncipies of law as decided by the Suprwne Courtas wel! as this Courtin catena of 11985Supp(1)8eC20 22006(15'.MPHT105(CG) 32006(2)MPHT31 (CG) ' ^ •^\ ^o Gowri decisions. Even if there is consent, ihe emptoyee, after retirement, is entitied an opportunity of hearing. Accordingly, the contenlion of the State is rejected. 7. The contention of the petifioner that even for exeroising power under Rule 65 of the Rules, 1976, basic printapl^ of naturai jusdce and fair play in action are required to be foliowed. in the present case, the State/authorities have not afforded any opportunjty of hearing to the petitioner to put forward his cas®asto why the deduction from the gratuity amount being excess amount cannot be made. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner merits acceptance. 8. This Court, in Wdyacttiar Tlwart (supra), has heid that the excess payment, if any, made to the petitioner, he was not at fault and the amount received by him might have been used by adiusting himself accordingly treating ihe same ashissaiary.At this stage, directing recovery of the alleged excess amount from the pensiorary benefits/gratuity amount of the petitioner vwll not be just and proper. 9. In view of foregoing andas admitted by leamed counsel appearing for the parties, this petition is allowed in the terms of the order passed in Vldyadhar Tnvatf (supra) i.e. the jmpugned order dated 17-8-2007 (Annexure P/2) deducting a sum of Rs.34,492/- from the retiral dues of the petitioner is hweby quashed. The petitioner s entitled to full pensionary behefrts/gratuity amount without any deduction. If the said amount is already deducted fromthe gratuity, the same shali be payable to the petrtioner with simpte interest @6% per annum from the date K became due titl the payment is made. However, it is open to the respondents totake recoufseto Rule 65 of ihe Rutes, 1976, if so advised, in accordance with !aw, after foliowing basic principles of naturaijustice. Noorderastocosts. ^,-. ^. ^ ._ -/-^^,,,. „. SdA . ^ Satish K. Agnihotri ,- £rr: Judge / -'..fiK