[Si3QNDENTS HIGH GOURT OF CHHAVTISGARH AT BILASPUR WRiT PETiTION (S) Ho. 5606 of 2008 PETiTiONER : Mithiiesh Kumar Shukia Aged about 64 years, s/o Late Shri Brijial Prasad ShuMa, Upper Division Teacher, R/o Bramhanj Rajnandgaon,DistrictRajnandgaon(C.G.) VERSUS 1. State of Chhattisf Education Department, J).K.S. Bhawan, (C.G.) 2. Joir Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.) 3. District Education Officer, Rajnandj Rajnandgaon (C.G.) 4. Biock Education Officer, Rajnandgaon, Rajnand^on (C.G.) 5. Principai, Sarveshwar Das Nagar Nigam Secondary School, Rajnandi Rajnandgaon (C.G.) UNDER ART1CLE 226 OF THECONSTiTUTiON OF INI (Passedon 17tt dayof March, 2009) petitioner has rection to qua the retiiai dues of ;!y paid to She 47V- from Shri Das. leamed recovery of excess paymen! principies ot natural Justice is been settled by the Suprems v. Stete ofHaryana and others1 in the matter of Vidyadhaf Tmar without foiiowini tntegra, the same foiiowed by this 11995 Supp (1) SCC20 2200S(l)MPHTi05(CG) i2aS§_V)MPHT 31 (CG) ;;An} 3. 5. impugned order has been Qfhearlng tothe petitioner. without affording any opportunlty Shri Shrirastava, iearned Panel Lawyer does not controvert the allegation that no opportunity of hearing was afforded before the impugned orders were passed. Howeyer, he reliss on Rule 65of the Chhattfegarh CMI Semces (Pension) Rules, 1976 (for short 'the Rules, 1976') for the purpose of recovery and adjustment of Government dues. The contention of the petitloner that even for exercising power under Rule 65 ofthe Rules, 1976, basic principies of natura! justice ind fair play in actfon are requiredto be foiiowed.In the present case, the State/authorities have notafforded any opportunlty of hearing to the petitloner to put forward his case asto whv deduction from the gratulty amount being.excessamount canrtot This Court, In the case of Vidyadhar Tlwari (supra), has held excess payment, if any, made tothe petltioner, he was not and the amount received by him mjgit have been used byad |iy treating thesame as his sal directing recovery of the alie^ )eneflts/ gratuity 6. In viewof the foregoing, thjs petition te aliowsd in the terms of the order passed in the case of VWyadftar 7'iwari (supra) r.e. the < impugned order dated 31.03.2006 (Annexure P/2) regardini recovery of Rs,26,47t/- from the retiral dues &f the petitionerlis; hereby quashed. The petitioner is entitted to fuil pensionaiy benefits/gratuity amount without any deductioh. However, it is open •to the respondents to take recourse to Ruie 65 of the Ruies, 197g, if so advised, in accordance with iaw, after foiiowing basip naturaljustlce. Noorderasto costs. Sd/- SatishK.Agnihotri Judge