HIGH COTJRT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILA8PUR WntPeti«ionNo.lS.Mof2006 TmON^ : Bhupati Ram Chaini S7o Late Shri Madhusudan Chaini, aged about.63 years, R/o Rambhantfaa, Raigarfa, Tahsil & District Raigai-h (CG). VE.RSUS BESPQNDENTS : l.State QfChhattisgarh Through Secretary, Education Department DKS Bhawan, Raipur (CG). 2. The Joint Director, A^ccounts Treasur^' and Pension, BilaspurfCG). 3. The Assistast Director, Edncation Department, Raigarh (CG). (WRTT .PETTTION ITNDRR A.RTTCT ,E ?.?.6/?77 OF THF, CONSTmjTION OF TNDTA) (SB: Hun'Me wir. Satisii K. Agiiiiiodi, J.) Present : Shri S.K T'wari, Advocate forthe petitioner. Shri Alok Bakhshi, Govt. Advocate for the State. ORALORDER (Passed on 19th uay ofjuiie, 2008) 1. With the conseirt of the leamed counse! appearing for tfae parties, the matter is taken up for hearing finalfy. 2. By this petition, the petitioner impugns the letter dated 09.12.2005 (Annexure P/3), issued b;' tlie respondent No. 2, whereb}' it has been directed to deduct a sum ofRs. 56,606/- as excess pa^'ment made to tlie petitioner, fi'om feis pensionaty beiiefits. 3. The brie.f fhcts. ii? nutshclL sre thBt the nctitioiier ws-s HDDQiiited as Uooer Divisioii Ts&cher 111 tlie Educatioii DeDartz?ie!it 012 0^2.09.1966 %nd Dosted atOo^.4. Hishsr Secotidatv School. JaiisiDUT Subseciue] tihe Detitionsr ws.s Dronioted to ths nost ofMeBd ^^stsr QH 12.I0.19S8- \ thcrc^fi.er to tlie Dos't ofLscturer on 1^2.10.1938. AAci' sttsinins tiie sise of superamiuation, &e petitioner retired fro"! sen/ices on 30.06.2005. He received tfie impugned letter dated 09.12.2005 (Annexure P/3) issued by fhe respondent No. 2. 4. Being aggrieved, the petitioner has filed this petition praying that the impugned letter dated 09.12.2005 (Aiinexure P/3) proposing dednctio" ofexcess amount frosn the pensioaaiy benefits ofthe petitioner withont £t^3rdlIlS U!l QDDQl'tllllit'^/ of Il€^l'iT12 tQ Di?t fcl"i,¥Sr<i C3Se of thc r'ifftittorsp'r ^ <11fl€Fa1 fifrhitrar^/ sn^ •niirp'sconahip ^/-»-.-.t.JK^^-tW^, J.t-t ^.^^.v^y—^ -i^ ^.l.^A-"..-^^ 1-».>.^.^ ^.^»^——^^.^.^.1,^^.-—. 5. 6 s Leamed counsel appeanng for the petitioner subinits that there is no fault on the part of the petitioner and the amount is paid to him in accordance with tlie pay scales, revised and fixed by tiie respondents from time to time. The respondents cannot recoves- the amount, already paid to the petitionei- after his retirement, that too witihout following the principles ofnatural justice. Leanied counsel farther submits that tfie petitioner does not want to press other reliefs on merit, except tliat the amount which has already been paid to the petitioner caiinot be recovered from the retiral dues/gratuity amount o" account of excess payment made to Ihe petitioner during that period without affording an opportunity ofhearing. On the other h?jid, leamed couas"! appeadng for the respondents/Stats submits tiiat since excess amount has been paid to the petitioner, the same can be recovered fi'om the retira! benefits/gratuity amount ofthe petitioner, eveii on retireinent without affording an opportunity of o' The Supreme Court, in the case ofSakib Ram Vs. Sfate ofHaryana and otJier^, in para 5 has held as under: "5. However, it is aot on account ofany misrepresentation made by the appeUant tfaat the benefit ofhigjier pay seale was given to him but by wrong constniction made by the Principal for which fhe appellant caimot be held to be at fault. Under the circumstances the amount paid till date may not be recovered fi-om the appellant." Learaed counsel for t!ie respondents/State wlies on Rule 65 of the Chhattisgarh Civil Sendces (Pension) Pjjles, 1976 (for short 'the Rules, 1976') forthe purpose ofrecover}' and adjustmesit ofGovemment dues. P.ule 65 ofthe Ru'es, 1976 reads as under: "Rule 65 - Recovery and adjustment ofGovemment dues:- (l) It shall be the duty ofevery reiiring Govemment servant to clear all Govemment dues beforethe date ofhis retirement. (2) Where a retiring Govemment servant does not clear the Govemment dues and such dues are ascertainable:- (a) aii equivalent cash deposit may be taken irom him; or (b) out ofthe g-atuity payable to him, his nominee or legal heir, an amount equal to that recoverable on accoimt of ascertainable Govemment dues shall be deducted. ' 1995 Supp (1) SCC 20 •^-'-.^ ^ Explanation-1. The expression ascertainable Govermneiit dues' includes balance of house building or conveyance advance, an-ears of rent and other charges pertaining to occupation of Govemment Accommodation, over-payment of pay and allowances and arrears of income tax deductible at source imder the Income Tax Act, 1961" 9. The conteiitio" ofthe petitiocer that even for exereising power under Rule 65 ofthe Rules, 1976, bas'c princip'es of •latural justice and fair play i" action are required to be fol'owed. In the present case, tiie State/authorities have not afforded axty opportunity of hearing to the petitioner to put fonvard his case asto why fhe deduction from the gratuity ainount being excess amount cannot be made. The contention ofthe leanied counsel for the petitioner merits acceptance. 10. This Coui-t, in the case of Vidyadhar Tiwari Vs. The State of Chhattisgarh & Others , has held that theexcess payment, ifany, made to the petitioner, he was not at faiilt aiid the amount received by him •mght have been used by adjusting himself accordmgly treating the same as his salary. At this stage, directing recoveiy of the alleged excess amount from tiie pensionmy benefits/gratuity amount of tlie petitioner will not bejust and proper. 11. Iii view ofthe foregoing and as admitted by learaed counse! appearing for both the parties, tliis petition is allowed in the tei-ms ofthe order passed in the case of Vidyadhar Tiwari (supra) i.e. the impugned letter dated 09.12.2005 (Aimexiire P/3) proposing to recovery of amount from the gratuity and other dues of the petitioner on account of excess paymest, is hereby quashed. The petitioner is entitled to full pensionaiy benefits/gratuity ainount without any deduction. However, the respondents may take recoiu-se to Rule 65 of the Rules, 1976, if so adwsed, in accordance witfa 'aw and basic principles of natairal justice. No order asto costs. Saliu Sd/- Satish K.Agnihotri Judge 2006 (l)MPHT 105 (C.G)