WW HéGH €OUR1' 0i“- CH§mTT§$G§RR $$LASPUR Wr§t Petition 228 S Na. 2310 cf26§8 Resgondenis Fetiiioner Bhukhanfai Khandey‘ Sic. bate Shri Krigapam Khandey,‘ Age 66 years, Retired Head Master, Primary 3chGGL #0. behind Gopai Petroi Pumpl‘ Purani Basti Ka‘tg‘nora, PS. & Tahsil — Katghora, District Kama \‘Cwi. V A\ Versus 1} State of Chha‘ri’isgarh, thmug‘n the Secretary, Education Department, D..S. Bhawan, Raipm (CG; 2) The Collecior, D}strict Korba (CG). 3) District Education Officer, District Karba (CG), tr; 4) The Aecaunt Divisianak and Pensign; Jami Director, Bi!aspur Trgasury, Livisim, Bilaspur {CG}, (Writ Petmon uhder Article 226 cf ihe Constitution of inc‘ia.) SB: Hon’bie Mr. Sa§sh K. Agnihorri, J. Presem‘ Snn Manoj Mrshra, cauncelforthe pemzcner, Shr.‘ Arcs“: 8m, Gcvt. Advccate fort. c rate. cram. ORbER {Passed on 10¢“ day cf Jury, 2098} With consent of bcfh the parties, the matter is heard iinaiiy. 2) The periticmer Whiie working as Head Master, Primary $c‘ncoi, Tribai Deparr’ment, District Karba, retired from services on attaining the age of superannuation on 30-4-2064. After his retirement, the peiiiioner received a letter dated 28—3-2368 (Annexure Pf’i) directing recovery a sum of Rs. 2,86,903i~ on accouni of excess payment made to the petiiioner. 3) Learned couneei appearing; for the petitioner submits ihai the petitioner was not given any opportunity to expiain the paymenr made io ihe peiiiioner. Thus, inis order is viiiaied for want or compiiance oi ine principies of naiurai jusrice and fair piay in-action. Learned counsel further submiis that there is no fauit on the part of the peiitioner and the amount is” paid io 'nim in accordance with the pay scaies, revised and fixed by the respondenis'from time to time. The respondents cannot recover the 1 amount akeadv said to the petitioner after his retirement, ihat too without fminwing ihe principkes of natural ius‘tice‘ 4) Per contra {earned counsei appearing for the respondentsista‘te submits, that it is true that n0 show cause notice was given to the petitioner and communications made between the officers was endorsed to the petitioner. The petitioner was riot oaiied upon to submit his expianaiion for payment of aiieged excess payment ano’ recovery thereafter. 5) The respono‘eni-authorities have not foiiowed the principles of naturai justice / and frhe impugned action has been taken withom affording an opportuniiy of hearing show cause noiice or without affording an opportunity, is condemned. Thus, this action of deducting Rs.2,86,903/— from retirai dues is ‘oad on account cf the fact that the petitioner was not afforded any oppodunity of hearing before the impugned action was taken, aiso. a tot‘ne petitioner. The practice of passing order invoiving civii consequences wi'rhout 6) The Hon’bie Supreme Court in the case of $ahiia Ram Vs. State of Haryana and others? in para 5 has held as under: upo. However: it is not on account of any misrepresentation made tot! the apoeiian‘t that the benefit of higher pay soaie was given to him but by wrong oonstruotton I- *naue rt by the Principai for which the aopeiiant cannot ‘oe heid to be at tauit. Under the circumstances, the amount paid tiii date may not be recovered from the appeiiant.” L 7) The Hon’bie Supreme Court in the case of Rt Tuisidas and others v. Government of AP, and others 2) observed that the benefit accrued eariier by way of grant of higher pay or revised pay, cannot 'oe taken away as the same is vioiative of Articie t4 and 16 of the Constttution 0t india being arbitraiy) unreasonabie and expropriatory. 8) This Court, in the case of Vtdhadhar'Tiwari Vs. State of Chinattisgarh & othersa has heid that for the excess payment, if any, made to the petitioner, he was not at tauit and the amount received by him might have been used bv ad‘iusting himself accordingiv treating the same as his salary. At this stage, .I 1 1995 Supp (I) soc 20 r AIR 2003 so 43 5 2006 (1) MPHT 105 (CG) ‘ Ram ‘m3~ QH\ direct‘mg recovery of the aiieged excess amount from the peosionary benefit3 of the petitioner Wm not be just and proper. 9) _ m View of the reasons mentioneci 'nereinabove, this petition is aiiowed. The impugned ietter daied 28-3-2006 (Annexure PI‘i) directing recovery a sum of Re2.86,903i— on account of excess payment made to the petitionet, hereby quashed. The petitionerie entitied to fui‘i pensionaiy benefitsfgratuity amount without any deduction. if the amount has been recovered, ‘t‘ne petitioner is entitled to the saio amount with tnterest at the rate of 6% oer annumt However, it is open to the respondents to take recourse to Ruie 65 of the Chhattisgarh Civii Services (Pension) Ruies, i976, if so advised, in accordance with iaw foiiowing basic principies’of naturai justice. No order aeto ooets. ‘ Sd/- Satish K.'Agnihotri i . ' 1Judge is » z