s' b^-f^? ' /" StogieBench INTHEHIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR. W.P.(S)No. S6'A^ OF 2009 PETITIONER ..<J^ ^- 1<3: , ^^ i<-\ Badri Singh Kathariya,—sonof Shri Phool Singh Kathariya, aged 64 years, Retired Lecturer from Govt. Higher Secondaiy School, Semartal, Block Bilha R/o. C/o. Dushyant Singh Advocate, , near Shiv- Hanuman Mandir, Tilak Nagar, Bilaspyr, Tahsil and District Bilaspur (C.G.) VERSUS RESPONDENTS 1) State ofChhattisgarh through Seerefary Department Education, DKS Bhavan, Raipur Raipur^C.G.) of 2) Jdint Directpr (Treagury) Acebunt and Pension, Bilaspur Division, District Bilaspur (C.G.) 3) District Education Officer, Bilaspur (C.G.) :4) Principal, Govt. Higher Secondary School, Seihartal, Block Bilha, District BilaspurfC.G.) «,, WRIT PETTHON UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONS'nTUnONOFINDIA 1. PARTICULRSOF THE PETITIONER: As m.entioned in the cause title. 2. PARTICULARS OFTHE RESPONDENTS: As mentioned in the eause title. iiS; 1. !G> li!n3^fn 1/>A^ ?Nafn"raE^ PARTICULARS OF THE ORDER AGAINST WHICH THE TmON IS BEING MADE :- s. ^]^- HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH : BILASPUR WR!T PETITION (S) N0. 3623 OF 2009 PETITIONER Badri Sinah Kathariya RESPONDENTS Vereus State of Chhattisgarh & Othere (Writ petition under Article 226ofthe Canstitution of India) Single Bench : Hon'ble Shri Satish K. Agnihotri, J. Present:- Shri Kunal Das, counsel fw the p^ttioner. Ms Sunita Ja'in, Pl-fgrth&Stat&: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. ORDER (ORALV (Passed on th's 10tftday QfSeptember, 20TO) Heard learned counsel forthe parties. :• By this petition, the petitioner impugns the order dated 15-5-2007 (Annexure P/2) passed by the respondent No.2, wha-eby a sum of Rs.34,085/- has been deducted holding it to be excess payment made to the petittoner, from his retiral dues. Leamedcounset appearing forthe petitioner subm'rts that the issue asto whether recovery of exeess payment can be made wnthout following principles of natural justtee is no longer res tntegra, thesame has been settled bv the Supreme Court in Sahlb Ram v. State of Haryana and others , and further followed by this Court in Vktyadhar Tiwari v. Tha State of Chhattisgarh & Ottiers^& Wdya Shankar Tiwart v, State ofM.P. (Ncw State of Chhattlsgarfi) and others. In the instant oase, the impugned order has been passed without affording any opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. Learned counsel appearing for the State does not oontrovert the allegation that no opportunity of hearing was afforded before the impugned orders were passed. Hewever, learned counsel relies on Rule 65 of the Chhattisgarh CivllSen/ices (Pension) Rules, 1976 (for short Ihe Rules, 1976') for the pwpose of recovery and adjustment (rf Govemmeni dues. The contention of the petrHoner that even for exeroising power under Ruie 65 of the Rules, 1976, basic prinejples of natural justice and fair play in action arerequired to be followed. In the present case, the State/authorities have not afforded any opportunity of hearing to the 11995Supp(1)SCC20 22006(1)MPHT105(CG) -4 2005 (2)MPMT 31 (CG) 5L3 .•?^ Gowri peiitioner to put fonvard his case asto why the deduction from the gratuity amounl being excessainount cannot be made. The contention of the learned counsel iw the petHioner merits acceptance. This Court, in Vicfyadhar Tiwsai (supra), has held that the ®<cess payment, if any, made to the petitioner, he was not at fault and the amount received by him might have been used by adjusting himseif accwdihgly treating the same as his saiary. At this stage, dirKsting recovery of the alteged excess amount from the pensionary benefits/gratuityamount ofthe petitionerwill nof bejustand propsr. In view offoregoing and as admitted by learned counsei appearing for the parties, this petition is atlowed in ihe terms of the order passed in Wctyadhar Twari (supra) i.e. the impugned order dated 15-5-2007 (Annexure P/2) deducting a sum of Rs.34,08S- from the retiral dues of the petitioner fe hereby quashed. The pefitioner is entitled to ful! pensionary beneTrts/gratuity amount viflthout any deduction. tf the said amount is already deducted from thegratuity, the sama shalt be payable to the petitioner withsimpte interest @ 6% per annum frwn the date it became due till the payment is made. However, it is open to the respondents to take recourse to Ruie 65 of the Rules, 1976, if so advised, in accordance with law, after following basfc principles of naturgljustice.Noorderastocosts. -/t^w" •"" Sd/- _ . , SatishK.Agmhotn