ll" IN ’I‘HF‘, HIGH COURT OF CHHA’I‘TISGARH : BILASPUR Writ PetitionE No. 2168 of 2008 Petitioner Yodhnath ’I‘iwari, S/o Shn' Jaso Pmsad 'l‘iwan', Ags about 62 yeam, Rctd‘ Asstt. Teacher, R/ o Village — Tokapal, Post -— Tokapal, Distt. — 3mmnca) Versus Respondents 1. State Secmtaxy, Government Educau'cn of Chhattisgarh &‘ ’f‘ribél Through Weifa; DepmTment, D.K.S. Bhawan, Raipur (C.G.). 2. Divisional Joint Director (Treasury, Pension'& Accounts) Bastar Division (C.G.) WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226VOF’1‘HE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA (SB: Hon’ble Shri Satish K. Agnihou'i J.) Shli Somkmlt Velma, Advocate for the petitioner. Shri P. K. Bhaiiuri, Panel Lawyer for the mspondents. ORDER (Passed on this 19th Day of August, 2008) 1. With the consent of learned counsel appearing for the parties, the matter is heani finally. 2. The petitioner, while working as Assistant Teacher in thev‘ Education Department, retired from service on attaining rim age of supemnnuan'on on 30.6.2007. Aiier his retirement, the petitioner received the cider dated 11.7.2007 (Annexuie P/ 1), directing recoveiy of a sum of Rs. 41,132/- on account of excess payment made-to the petitioner. 3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was not given any opportunity to explain about the payment made to the petitioner. Thus, this order is vitiated for want of compliance of the principles of natural justice and kir play in action. Learned counsel further submits that thm‘e is no fault: on the part ofthe petitioner and the amount is paid to him in accordance with the pay scales, revised and nxed by the mspondents fmm time to time. No reason has been assigned asto on which count the excess payment, if any, was made. The respondents cannot recover the amount, aheady paid to the peu‘tioner after his retirement, that too without following the principles of natuml justice. Learned counsel appearing for the mspondents/State submits that it is true that no show cause not‘ce was given to the petitioner. The petitioner was not called upon to submit his explanation for payment of alleged excess payment and recovery thereafter. The respondent—authorities have not followed the principles of natural justice and the impugned acn'on has been taken without affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. The practice of passing order involving civil consequences, without Show cause notice or without aifording an opportunity, is condemned. Thus, this action of deducting Rs. 41,132/- h’om retrial dues is. bad on account of the fact that the petitioner was not aifoided any opportunity of hearing before the impugned action was taken. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Sahib Rum Vs. St te of Haryann and othetsl , in para 5 held, as under. “5. However, it is not on account of any mismpresentan‘on made by the appellant that the benetit of higher pay scale was given to him but by wrong construction made by the Principal for which the appellant cannot be held to be at fault. Under the circumstances, the amount paid till date may not be recovered hum the appellant.”- ~j/ 7. The Hon’ble Supmme Court in the mattcr of P. Tubman and others Vs. Government of A.P. and others? , obsexvcd that the benem accrued earlier by way of giant of higher pay or revised pay, cannot be taken away as the same is vio]a&ve of Article 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India being arbitrary, masonable and expropriatmy. 8. This Court in the matter of Vidhyadhar Tiwari Vi. State of Chhattisgath & others3, held that for the excess payment if any, made to the petiu'oner, he was not at fault and the amount xeceived by him might have been used by adjusting himself accoxdingly heating the same as his salary. At this stage, directing recovery of the alleged excess amount h‘om the p‘ensionary beneiits of the petitioner will not be just and pmper. 9. In view of the forgoing, the petition is allowed. The impugned order dated 11.7.2007 (Annexuie P/ 1), directing recovery of Rs. 41,132/3 on account of excess payment made to the... petitioner, is hereby quashed. The petitioner is entitled to'full pensionary benehts/ gratuity amount without any deduction. If the amount has already been recovered, the pen'tioner is entitled to the said amount with interest at the rate of 6% per annnm. However, it is open to the respondents] State to take recourse to Rule 65 of the Chhattisgarh Civil Services (pension) Rides, 1976, if so advised, in accordance with law, following the basic principlas 0f natural justice. No order i asto/ costs. , V “#Wi I Sd/_ . ,. i - Satish K. Agmhom Judge Thakur . 2 {A.I.R. 2003 so 43} ’ 3{2006 (1) M.P.H.T. 105 (c.c.)}