c^- \^ IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR W.P.fS.) N0. r^6'jy /2009 PETITIONER: .••"wi <%^ ** ./•r-^' »*•' .^ ^^ ^.-••H^- A^"' -e®'" '.^"' s<^--" Munuram Patel Retd Surveylance Inspector (S.I.) S/o Kanghi Ram Patel, Aged about 67 years, R/o Village Jhikabohal, Post Libra, Block Tamnar, District Raigarh (C.G.) VERSUS RESPONDENTS 1.' State of Chhattisgarh: Through The Secretary, Public Health & Family Welfare Department, D.K.S. Bhawan, Raipur (C.G.) 2. ' The Joint Director Treasury Accountant and Pension Bilaspur, District Bilaspur (C.G.) 3. Chief Medical Officer, Raigarh, District Raigarh (C.G.) WRIT PETITION UND^R^ ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA FOR ISSUANCE OF WRIT IN NATURE OF MANDAMUS CERTIORA^Y OR ANY OTHER WRIT OF LIKENATURE ETC. The petitioner most humbly and respectfuUy begs to submit as under: 1) PARTICULARS OF THE PETITIONER:- As stated in cause title above. it A.-, HIGH COURTOF CHHATriSGARH : BILASPUR WR!T PETiTiON (S) N0. ^35 OF 20!^ PETITIONER Manuram Patel RESPONDENTS Versus State ofChhattisgarh & Others (Writ petition ynder Articte 226 of the Constitution of India) Single Bench : Hon'bleShri Satish K. Agnihotri, J. Shri D.R. Patel, counsel forthe oetitioner. Ms Sunita Jain, Panel Lawyer for the State. Present:- ORDERfORAU (Passed on this 10th day of September, 2009) 1. 1-ieard learned counsel for the parties. 2. By this petltton, the petitioner impugnsthe orderdated 3-10-2002 (Annexure P/2) passed by the respondent No.2, Vi/hereby a sum of Rs.17,419/- has been deductect holding jt to be excess payment made to the petitioner, from his retiral dues. 3. Learned counset appearing forthe petitionersubmiis thatthe issue asto whether reoovery of excess payment can be made wthout following principles of natural justice is no longer res inteya, the same has been settled by the Supreme Court in Sahib Ram v. State of Haiyana and others , and further followed by this Court in Vkiyadhar Tiwari v. The State of Ctitiattlsgarh & Ottiers^ & Victya ShanKw Tlwart v. Stete ofM.P. (Ncw State of ChhaWsgarh) and ottiers. In the instant case, the impugned order has been passed vwthout affording any opportunity af hearing to the petitioner. 4. Learned counsel appearing for the State does not controvert the ailegation that no opportunity of hearing was afforded before Ihe impugned ordens were passed. However, learned counsel relies on Rule 65 of the Chhattisgarh Civil Services (Pension) Rutes, 1976 (for short -the Rules, 1976') fw the purpose of recovery and adjustment of Govemment dues. 5. The contention of the petltioner that even for exercising power undar Rule 65 of the Rules, 1976, basic principlesof natural jusliGe and fair play in action are required to be followed. In the present case, the State/authorities have not afforded any opportunity of hsaring to the l19S5Supp(1)SCC20 2 2006 (1)MPhiT 105 (CG) 3 2006 (2) MPHT 31 (CG) R^BB petitioner to put forward his case asto why the deduction from the gratuityamount being excess amount cannot be made. The contention ofthe iearned counsel for the petitioner merits acceptance. 6. This Court, in Vldyadhar TTwwl(supra), has held that the excess payment, if any.made to the petitioner, he was not at fault and the amount received by him might have been used by adjusfing himseif accordingly treating the same as hissalary.At this stage, directing recovery of the alleged excess amount -from the pensionary benefrts/gratu'rtyamount ofthe petitionerwitl not bejustand prQpef. 7. in view of foregoing and as admitted by learned counsel appearing for the parttes, thjs petition is allowed in the terms oi the order passed in Vidyadhar Jlwart (supra) i.e. the impugned oreter dated 3-10-2002 (Annexure P/2) deducting a sum of Rs.17,419/- from the retiraldues of the petitioner te herehy quashed. The petitioner is entitled to fuil pensionary benefrts/graturty amount without-anydeduction. if the said amount is already (jeducted from the gratuity, the sameshalt be payable 1o the petitioner with simple interest @ 6% pw annum from the date it became due tilt the payment is made. However, it is open to the respondents to take recourse to Ruie 65 of the Rules, 1976, ifso advised, in accordance with law, after fotlowing baste principles of natural justice. No order asto costs. -•/-'?"• Gowri sd/- . .„: SattehK-A8I"hotrt Judge wHf^-WSSs^-'' ,