v'. HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR >NER : Raja Ram Yadav, age about 63 years, S/o Late Shri Matadin Yadav, Retired Head Master, Nagamar, Post Nagamar, Tahsil Jagdalpur, Distt. Bastar (CG). VERSUS EjTTS : 1. State Govermnent of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary Tribal Welfare Department & Education Department, DKS Bhawan, Raipur (CG). 2. Joint Director (Treasury and Pension) Jagdalpur, Distt. Bastar (CG). 3. Block Education Officer Block Jagdalpur (CG). 4. Assistant Commissioner Tribal Welfare Department, Jagdalpur (CG). (WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA) (SB: Hon'ble Mr. Satish K. Agnihotri, J.) Present : Shri Ajay Shrivastava, Advocate for the petitioner. Miss Sunita Jain, Panel Lawyer for the State/respondents. ORAL ORDER With the coasent ofthe parties, the matter is taken up for hearing, finally. 1. By this petition, the petitioner impugns the order dated 26.03.2006 (Armexure P/3) passed by the respondent No. 02, whereby it has been directed to deduct a sum ofRs. 1,52,163/- as excess payment made to the petitioner, from the pensionary benefits. 2. The brief facts, in nutshell, are that the wife of the petitioner while workiag as Assistant Teacher, Primary School, Nagamar, died on 02.10.2004 in hamess. The husband of late Smt. Shanti Bai Yadav received the impugaed recovery order dated 26.03.2006 (Annexure P/3), issued by the respondent No. 2, whereby, the District Treasury .-y' Officer was directed to recover a sum of Rs. 1,52,163/- without affording an opportunity ofhearing to the petitioner. 3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the issue asto whether recovery of excess payment can be made without following principles of natural justice is no longer res integra, the same has been settled by the Supreme Court in the matter of Sahib Ram Vs. State of Haryana and others , and further followed by this Court in the matter of Vidyadhar Tiwari Vs. The State ofChhattisgarh & Others . 4. Learned counsel for the respondents/State relies on Rule 65 of the Chhattisgarh Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1976 (for short 'the Rules, 1976') for the purpose ofrecovery and adjustment ofGovemment dues. Rule 65 ofthe Rules, 1976 reads as under: "Rule 65 - Recovery and adjustment of Govemment dues:- (1) It shall be the duty of every retiring Govemment servant to clear all Govemment dues before the date of his retirement. (2) Where a retiring Govemment servant does not clear the Govemment dues and such dues are ascertainable:- (a) an equivalent cash deposit may be taken from him; or (b) out of the gratuity payable to him, his nominee or legal heir, an amount equal to that recoverable on account of ascertainable Govemment dues shall be deducted. Explanation-1. The expression 'ascertainable Govemment dues' includes balance of house building or conveyance advance, arrears of reat and other charges pertaining to occupation of Govemment Accommodation, over-payment ofpay and allowances and arrears ofincome tax deductible at source under the Income Tax Act, 1961" 5. The contention ofthe petitioner that even for exercising power under Rule 65 .ofthe Rules, 1976, basic principles ofnatural justice and fair play in action are required to be followed. In the present case, the_ ' 1995Supp(l)SCC20 22006(1)MPHT105(CG) State/authorities have not afforded any opportunity o{ hearing to the petitioner to put forward his case asto why the deduction from the gratuity amount being excess amount cannot be made. The contention ofthe leamed counsel for the petitioner merits acceptance. 6. The respondents/State, in their retum submits that no notice is necessary before making recovery of the excess payment which is not established asto whether excess payment has been made or not. Submission of leamed counsel for the State/respondents is coatrary to the well established dictum laid down by the Supreme Court in the matter ofSahib Ram (Supra). 7. In view of the foregoing, this petition is allowed in the terms of the order passed in the case of Vidyadhar Tiwari (supra) i.e. the impugned letter dated 26.03.2006 (Annexure P/3) regarding recovery of amount from the gratuity and other dues ofthe petitioaer on account ofexcess payment, is hereby quashed. The petitioner is entitled to full pensionary benefits/gratuity amount without any deduction. However, it is open to the respondents to take recourse to Rule 65 of the Rules, 1976, if so advised, in accordance with law and basic principles of natural justice. No order asto costs. Sd/- Satish K. Ag Judge Sahu