T ^ XI-HC—78 WWWWHKft '3%T '^i^K'r*), •e?€)'M<re, fs^wy. ^y.".(3-'S:%--"--^2oog ^n^r 1T5rer (^?^^) ^H^T^T'f^fW 'TOT 3?T^?T'sFRTO WcHW^1^^^?! PETITIONER: -Verslis- RESPONDENTS: 1. 2. 3. 4. Sinale Bench: Hon^bll 30-1-2009:- Shri V.K. Pandey, counsel forjthe Miss Sunita Jain, Panel Lawy^ The petitioner retired on 30th | on attaining the age of superannus represented forfixation of his pensiofi informed by the respondent author|ties 4»^id^W^ ^ fe^ ^ftiT^R ^affiw^n^i Padmadeo Singh, Son of Late Shri Hari Prasad Singh, ^ed about 62 years, Retired Head Master, Present resident at Near Deo Hote! in tti® House of Laiian Singh, Devjganj Road, Ambikapur, Distt. Surguja (CG) State of Chhatti^garh, Through the Secretary, Triba! Development Department, D.K.S. Bhawan, Raipur (CG) The Assistant Commissioner, Tribat Development, Ambikapur, Distt. Surgu]a(CG) The Joint Djrector, Treasury, Accounts and Pension, Biiaspur The Principal, Govemment Higher Secondary SchooS Rajpur, Distt. Surguja (CG) is Shri Dhirendra Mishra. J. petitioner. ^r for the Stete/respondents. June, 2008 from the post of Headmaster ^tion. After hts retirement, the petitioner and other retirai dues. However, he was vide Annexure-P/1 that recovery of 4.. •1-- T ^ '^ XI-HC—78 '3^T ^41<41d^, ^Tn^<l<o, f<«ytl<H^< WWITlShHlth "^200 311^7 <lra^ (<i?ta<Bi^) ^H^T^Tf^fW 'cWSTT^T'SCTW ^^^ TCTW^Rf^TW^r -^- nlot Rs.22,402/- from the gratuity amoun| the time of fixation of salary. Learned counsel for the petit has been made without affording an^ the eve of his retirement, which is that the case of the petjtloner is squ^t 2008 passed in WP(S) No.2820/^ Chhattjsgarh & others). On the other hand, the 65 of the Pension Rules, 1976 (fls recovery and adjustment of paid excess payment at the t$me ofj amount has been made victe Ann^ petitioner himseif has gsven authorizing the State to recover Gov< ! have heard Searned counsel This Court in the matter of on the decision of the Hon'bte Supr^ State of Haryana and others1 a|- Chhattisgarh & Others has held the petitioner, he was not at fault been used by adjusting himself acco| this stage, directing recovery of 11995Supp(1)SCC20 2 2006 (1),MPHTJ05.,CC^ ^l^fd^f 'W^ff ^ "fetst <R»t<^i< '^sffimsT^T js to be made due to excess payment at loner submits that the aforesaidl recovery opportunity of hearing to the petifoner on permissjbte undler the iaw. He Siybmits rejy covered by the order dated 16th Jun@, ;008 (Ram Sunder Mishra V. State of respohdents In their return submitted that Rule short 'the RuSes,1§76') provjdes for Governr|ient dues. Since the petitioner has been Ifixation of hlssatary, .reeovery of excess ^xure-P/1. It was also argued that the under<aking/consent at the tim@ of retirement trnment dues from his gratuity amoynt. for the parties. Sunder Mlshra (Supra) ptacing reiiance |kme Court in the matter of Sahib Ram V. Vidyacihar Tiwari V. The Stete of l|iat the excess payment, if any, made io the amount received by htm might have tdingiy treating the same as his satary< At |the aileged excess amount from the Rahi ahd anti 4.. XI-HC—78 ^T^I ^r'f^fNF ?W ^lt^T'^ri^T Ban/e 'S^ T<\WW^, ^Tll'y^Ko, f®l<'11^lj,< *11*<CTI »»^ic»» ••^200 3T1^T 'q^T (^f^^?) I^TYWRfi^ 3?T^T - 3-... penslonary benefits/gratuity amout|it proper, Even for.the purposes of ^ 1976, basic prindples of natural ju^ti befollowed. So far as contention of petitjoner has given authorizatjon t^ from the gratuity 1s concemed, evet were duty bound to follow principle^ For the aforesaid reasons, i^ order passed in the case of Vidyadf Annexure-P/1 dated 14-8-2008 •account of excess payment is pensionary benefits/gratuity amouitit open .to.the respondents, if so Rules, 1976, in accordance with lavt of the petitioner may not be just and itercising power under Rute 65 ofthe Rules, ju^tice and fair piay in action are required to ^j^tcn^ii ^TP^f "^ft^ iP^^K " '^3tf^H3^T ieai|ned counsel for th©respondents that the <> recover amount against excess payment fi after such auttiorization, the respondente of natural justjce before effecting recovery. (e instant petition is altowed In terms ofthe •|iar Tiwan (Supra), The impugned order of •reg^rding recovery fronni the gratuity amount on hereSty quashed. The p^ltioner is entitled to full t, without any deduction. However, jt Is ad^sed, to tatce recourse to Ruie 6©of the t and basic principles of naturai justice. Sd/- DhirendraMishra Judge