SINGLE BEN-$312 KEG/52%“ ® IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WRIT PETITIQN ( s ) No. @x‘8’71 0f 2009 Versus RESPONDENTS: / 1. The ‘ State of Chhattisgarh, through the Secretary, Department of Health and Family Welfare, Mantraiay at D.K.S. Bhawan,‘ Raipur (CG). Asst: soiicnoraeneraionndéa 2. The Accountant General High Court nf Chhattisnwh / Chhattisgarh, Accounts : ggnéweo-oot‘? @Wgwl? Ms. $hmmé§a anghai Haqdari Nidhi , 10 Pagariya Complex, Pandari, Raipur, District Raipur (CG). . The Joint Director, Treasury , Accounts and Pension, Raipur (CG). .The Joint Director cum Superintendent, Dr. Bhimrao Ambedkar Smriti Hospital, Raipur (CG). WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE M CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PETITIONER: x Mrs. A. Joy W/o Mr. K.S. aged about 61 years, Retired , Assistant Nursing \qkgf, Supexintendent, R/o O why“ Akhilesh Bhawan, Sector—2, 3 Shanker Nagar, Raipur (CG). HIGH COURT OF CHHATHSGARH : B!LASPUR WRET PETITION (S) NO. 2187 OF 2009 PETlTlONER Mrs. A. Joy Versus The State of Chhattisgarh & Oihels (Writ petition under Ariicie 226 of ihe Consiiiution of india) Single Bench : Hon‘bie Shii Saiish K. Agnihoiri, J. RESPONDENTS Present :- Shri Rakesh Anthony, counsei for the petitioner. Shri Y3. Thakur, Dy. A.G. for the State. ORDER ORAL (Passed on this 1.0» day of September. 29%) 1. Heard learned counsei for the parties. 2. By this petition, the petitioner impugns the Grder dated 31-12-2BO8 (Annexure P/2) passed by therespondent No.2, whereby a sum of Rs.62,665/- has been deducted hoiding it to be excess payment made to the petitioner, from his retirai dues. Learned counsei appearing for the petitioner submits that the issue asto whether recovery of excess payment can bé‘t‘nade without foiiowing principies of natural justice is no longer res integm, the same has been settied by the Supreme Court in Sahib Ram v, State of Haiyana and others’, and further followed by this Court in Vidyadhar Tiwan‘ v. The State of Chhattisgarh & Othersz & Vidya Shankar Tiwari v, $tate of MP. {Now State of Chhattisgam} and others3, in the instant caset the impugned order has been passed without affording any opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. 4. Learned counsei appearing for the State does not controvert the aiiegation that no opportunity of hearing was afforded before the impugned orders were passed. However, learned counsei relies on Ruie 65 of the Chhattisgarh Civii Services (Pension) Rules 1976 (for short ‘the Rules, 1976’) for the purpose of recovery and adjustment of Government dues. 5. The contention of the petitioner that even for exercising power under Rule 65 of the Rules, 1976, basic principles of natural justice and fair play in action are required to be foliowed. in the present case. the State/authorities have not afforded any opportunity of hearing to the i 1995 Supp (1 ) soc 2o 2 2006 (1) MPHT 105 (CG) 3 2005 (2) MPHT 31 (CG) / h) petitioner to put forward his case ask; why the deduciion from ihe graiuity amoum being excess amouni cannot be made. The conientien Go of the [earned counsel for ihe petitinner merits acceptance. 6. This Court, in Vidyadhar Tiwan‘ (supra); has heid thai the excess payment, if any, made to the petitianer, he was noi at fauii and the amount received by him might have been used by adjueiing himseif accordingiy treaiing the same as his saiary. Ai this stage, eireciing recovery of the alieged excess amount from ihe pensionary benefits/gratuity amouni of the petitioner wil! not be just and proper. 7. in view of foregoing and as admitted by learned counsel appearing for the parties, this petition is allowed in the terms of the order passed in Vidyadhar Tiwati (supra) i.e. the impugned order dated 31-12-2068 (Annexure P/2) deducting a sum of Rs.62,665/- from the retire! dues of the petitioner is hereby quashed. The petitioner is emitted to fut! pensionary benefrts/gratuity amount without any deduction. If the said amount is aiready deducted from the gratuity, the same shah be payabie to the petitioner with simple interest @ 6% per annum from the date it became due tiil the payment is made. However, it is open to the respondents to take recourse to Ruie 65 of the Rules, 1976. it so advised, in accordance with law, after totiowing basic principtes of naturai justice. No order asto costs. Sdl- Satish K. Agnihotr Judge Gowri i,