^ HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR Writ Petition (S) No. 1 562 of2009 PETITIONER Dwai-ika Singh Parihar aged 62 years, Son of late Shri Rukmaugal Singh, Retired untrained Forest Guard, Range Dondi, Kuwasgaondi Naka, District Durg (CG). RESPONDENTS 1. State of Chhattisgarh through fhe ^ Secretaiy, Forest Department Ministry, DKS Bhawan, Raipur (CG). 2. Divisional Joint Director, Kosh, LeKha, Aecounts, Ghadi Chowk, Raipur (CG). 3. Divisional Forest Officer. Dura. (^VRIT PETn'iON UNDER ARTICLE 226 QF 'FHE CONS'nTUTION OF INDIA) (SB: Hon'bleMr. Satish K. Asnihotri. J.V Shii Ajay Shrivastava, Advocate forflie petitioner. Sliri Aran Sao, Govt. Advocate for the State. ORALORDER (Passed on 25 day ofMarch, 2009) With the consent ofthe parties, the matter is taken up for hearing, finally. By this petition, the petitioner impugns fhe order dated 21.08.2007. (Annexure P/l) passed by the respondent No. 2, whereby it has been directed to recover/adjust the excess amount of Rs. 27,462/- from tlie retiral dues of the petitioner. The brieffacts, in nutshell, are that the petitioner while working as Forest Guard, retired 011 attaining the age of superannuatioii on 31.03.2007. The petitioner reeeived the impugned order dated 21.08.20Q7 (Annexure P/.l) passed by the respondent No. 2, whereby it has been directed to ^s... ' ' '...•• recover/adjust the excess amountwhich has beenpaidto the petitioner. Bemg aggrieved, the petitionerhas filed-this petition, stating that no recovery can be made without afiording an oppoi-tunity of hearing to flie petitioner a&ei retirement; as suchthe order is illegal, arbitrary and urireasonable. Leamed counsel appearuig tbr the pefitioner submits that there is no fault on the part offhe petitioner aiid fhe ainount was paid to them in accordance with the pay scales, revised and fixed bythe respondents froffl time to time. The respondents cannot recover the amount, already paid to fhe petitioner after his retirement, that too wifhout following the principles of natural justice. Leafned counsel further submits that the petitioner does not want to press otlier reliefs on merit, except that fhe amount wliich has already been paid to the. petitioner carmot be recovered from the retiral dues/gratuity amount on account of excess payment made to the petitioner during fhat period vvifhout aBbrding an opportunity ofhearing. 5. On the other haiid, leamed counsel appearmg for the State/'respondents submits fhat since the pay of the petitioner vvas fixed contrary to the provisions and on scrutmy, it was found that excess amount has been paid, fhe same can be recoyered from the retiral benefits/gratuity amount of fhe petitioner, even on retu-ement without affording aii opportunity ofhearing. 6. The Supreme Court, in the case ot' Sahib Ram Vs. State of Haryana and others, m para 5 has held as under: "5. However, it is not on account ot' any misrepresentation made by the appellant tiiat the benefit ofhigher pay scaie was given to him but by WTorig construction made by the Principal for which the appellant caimot be held to be at fault. Under the circumstances the amount paid till date iiiay not be rscovered from fhe appellant." 7. The Supreme Com-t, in the matter ofP. Tulsidas and otliers v. Govemment of A.P. and ofhers , observed thatthe benefit accnied earlierby way ofgrant of higher pay or revised pay, cannot be taken away as the saine is violative of Article 14 and 16 ofthe Constitution oflndia being arbitrary, uiireasonable and expropnatoty. This Court, inthe case ofVidyadhar Tiwari Vs. The State ofChhattisgai-h & Othsrs , has held that the excess payment, if any, made to the petitioner, he was not at fault aiid fhe amount received by liim nright have been used by adjustitig himself accordingly treating the same as his salary. At this stage, directing recover;'' of the alleged excess amount from the pensioriar^" •benefits/gt-atuity amount offtie petitioner will not be just and proper. ' 1995Supp(I)SCC20 - Affi. 2003 SG 43 320060'iN;(PHT105l:CG) Sabu t-/ 9. In vievv oftiie foreeoing this petition is allowed in tlie terms ofthe order passed in tiie case ofVidyadhar Tiwari (supra) i.e. the impugned order dated 21.08.2007 (Aimexure P/l) regai-dmg recovery ofamount from the gi-atuity and other dues of the petitioaer on account of excess payment, is hereby quashed. The petitioner is entitled to lull pensionary benefits/gratuity amount without any deduction. Ifthe amount has been recovei-ed,-the petitioner is entitled to the said amount with interest at the rate of 6% per annum. However, it is open to the respondents to take recourse to Rule 65 of the Rules, 1976, ifso advised, in aceordance with law following basic principles ofnatural iustice. No order asto costs. 10. Consequently, penditig applications stand disposed of. SAl^ ^^se ^ NW