HSGH GQURTOF CHHATTISSARH: BILASPUR Wrif Petition (S) No. S32S of2(X)6 Petitioner ResBondents 2) 3} Virendra Bahadur Singh, aged about 60 yeare, Son of Late Shri Ram Naresh Singh, retired Revenue inspeotor, resident of Near Govt. Degree College, Main Road, Odgi, BaikurthFMr, District Korea (CG). Versus State pf Chhattisgarft, through the Secretary, Department of Revenue, D.K.S. Bhawan, Raipur The Colleotor, District Bilaspur (CG). The Joint Director, Treasury, Accounts and Pension, Bilaspur, District Biiaspur (CG). (Writ Petition under Article 22SC27 of the Constihjtion of India) SB: Hon'bie Mr. Satish K. Agnthotri, J. Present • Shri Ganesh Gupta, counsel for the petitioner. Shri Satish Gupta, Govt. Advocate fortheState. ORAl. OROER (Passed on 3^-2008) By this petition, the petitioner impugns the order dated 27-7-2006 (Annexure P/1), whereby respondent-authorities have deducted a sumof Rs?89,140/- towards excess payment from the retirai dues ofthe petitioner 2) The brief facts, in nutshell, are that the petitioner woriong as Revenue tnspector in the ofRce of Collector, Bilaspur, after attaining the age of superannuatiori, retired from services on 30-6-2006. He received the impugned order dated 27-7-2006 (Annexure P/1) issued by the respondent No.3 forrecoveryofamountofRs.69,1^K)/- from hisretiral dues, which has been paid to the petitioner during his service period in excess. Thereafter, the petitioner made a representation on 23-9-2006 (Annexure P/2) to the respondent No.2 stating that he retired from services on 30-6-2006 and neither excess amount has been paid by htm nor any nottee regarding the 'fn-^ ''iiiSE:;: -2- same has been issued by the competent authority during the service period of the petitioner. After his retirement the impugned order dated 27-7-2006 has been Issued, which is not just and proper. The representation dated 23- 9-2007 (Annexure P/2) made by the petitioner to the respondent No.2, has not been considered. 3) Being aggrieved, the petitioner has fiied this petition praying that the impugned order dated 27-7-2M6 (Annexure P/1) deducUng a sum of Rs. 69,140- from the pensionary benefits of the petttioner without affording an opportunity of hearing to put forward case of the petitioner, to the petitioner is illegai, arbitrary and unreasonable. 4) The respondents have categorically stated in their return that the petitioner retired from services on 30-6-2006 affer attainir^ the superannuation. The service book of the petitioner v/as sent to 'the responderrt No.2 for verification ofthe pay fixation. On receiving the service book of the petitioner, it was verified by the respondent No. 3, who raised an objection on 2-2-2006 that an excess payment has been made to the petitioner from 1-4-1981 and therefore, directed for recovery of the excess amount after its pay fixation. In pursuance of the aforesaid direction, ttie pefitioner's pay fixation was made vide order dated 27-4-2006 by the Collector/respondent No.2 and accordingly pay has been regulwized by preparing "Patrak" (Annexure R/4) showing excess amount payment to the petitioner of sum of Rs.69,140/- from 1-4-98 tili the date of his superannuation i.e., upto 30-6-2006. Accordingly, the Joint Dfrector, Treasury, Accounts and Pension, Bilaspur has passed the impugned order dated 27-7-2006 (Annexure P/1) while fixing the petitioner's pension and directed the District Treasury Officer, Bilaspur to release the same after the adjustment of the alleged excess payment of Rs.69,140/-. -g--.... ;~7^.~. "-•^. ? 1 '" ^^- Jrl •% •;'. w .s ^, ^-"y 'r'^-«:;d£»- 5) Learned counsel appearing for the peBioner submite that there is no fautt on the part of the petitioner and the amount is paid to him in accordance with the pay scates, revised and flxed by the respondents from time to time. The respondents cannot recover the amount, already paid to the petitioner after his rstirement, that too without toitowing the principles of natura! jusfce. Learned counsel further submits that the petitioner does not want to press other reliefs on merit, except that the amount which has already been pald to the petitioner cannot be recovered from tfte retiral dues on account of excess payment made to the petitfoner during that period without affording an opportunity of hearing. 6) On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the respondents/State submtts that since the pay of the petitioner was fixed contrary to ttie provisions and on scrutiny 'rt was found ttiat excess amount has been paid, the same can be recovered from the retiral benefits of the petitioner, even on retirement wfthout affording an opportunity of hearing. 7) . The responderit-authorities have not tottowed the principles of natural justice and the impugned action has been taken without affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitjoner. The practice of passing order 3;,- invotving civil/evil eonsequences, is condemned. Thus, this action of deducting Rs.69,140/- from retiral dues, is bad on account of the fact that the petitioner was not afforded any opportunity of hearing before the impugned action was taken, also. 8) This court, in the case of Vidyadhar Tiwari Vs. The State of Chhattisgarh and otheis', has held at for 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 adjusting himself accordingly treating the same as ' 2006 (1) MPHT 105 (CO) Raju his salary. At this stage, directing recovery of the alleged excess amount from the pensionary benefits of the petitioner will not be just and proper. 9) In view of the foregoing and as admitted by learned counsel appearing for both tfie parties, this petition is disposed of in tte terms of the order passed in the case of Vidyadhar Tiwari (supra). The amount so deducted be paid to the petitioner with simple interest. No order asto costs. Sd/- Satish K.Agnihotri Judge ^SS%KS?l eR?^®S;Li'S;^3^1^^^^^^^