@ HIGH COURT OF CHHNTISGARH AT BILASPUR W. P. (S) No. 6669 of 2006 Petiu'oner Gani Mohammad. Age about 62 years, S/o Late Shri Noor Mohammad. Assistant Teacher. P.$. Kamnar. Balaii Ward. Jain Mandir Road, neat Oswal Bhawan. Jagdalpur. Distt. — Bastar (6.6.) Versus Respondents 1. State Govemment of Chhattisgarh, Through :- Secremy, Tribal Welfate Department & Educah‘en Department, D.K.S. Bhawan, Raipur (C.G.) 2. Joint Director (Treasury and Pension), Jadalpur. Distt. — Basmr (cs) _ j» 3. Block Education omcer. Tribal Welfare Department Darbha. District - Bastar (C.G.) 4. Sahayak Pariyojna Prashasak. Akikrit Adiwasi Vikas Pariyoina, Jagdaipur, District - Basw (cs) WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLES 225 ¢F THE CO$TITUTION OF iNDiA SB: Hon‘ble Mr. Justice Satish 'K. Agnihotri $hri A}ay $hrivastava. Advocate for the petitioner. *i‘ Shri Sushil Dubey, Govt. Advocate for the respondenw. ORDER (Passed on this 23'“ day or April, 2007) 1. By this petition. the petitioner has prayed for a suitable writ or direction to quash the order dated 31.8.2006 (Annexure PI3), passed by me respondent No.2. directing for recovery of a sum of Rs. 33.78%. from the retire! dues of the petitioner‘ because this amount was wrongiy paid to the petitioner owing to incorrect hxation of saiary. 2. The brief facts. in nutsheiL are that the petitioner was working on the post of Assistant Teacher. The salary of the petitioner was revised. time to time and he was wanted benem of Kramonnati‘ pumant to the order dated 5.1 .2001 (Annexure P11). The petitioner was retired from service on attaining the age of superannuation. When the case of the petitioner was sent for pension to the respondent No.2, the respondent No.2 raised an obiection vide order dated 20.7.2006 (Annexure P/Z) with-regard to the fixation of salary of the petitioner to the effect that the petitioner was not entitled to the Krimonnati in the pay scaie of Rs. 5500-9000/-, Accordingly. the case of the petitioner was examined and owing to incorrect fixation of pay. the aforesaid recovery was directed from the retirai dues of the petitioner. . Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that there is no fault on the part of the petitioner. as the petitioner was getting the salary. as fixed from time to time, by the respondents. The respondents cannot recover the amount. if any. from the retirai dues of the petitioner, without affording an- opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. The respondents have also not proved that the excess payment was made after giving any opportunity of hearin to the petitioner. To substantiate his submissions. teamed counsel appearing for the peh'tioner cited a decision of this Court in the case of Vidya Shankar Tiwari Vs. State of M.P. (Now State of Chhattisgarh) and others. reported in 2006 (2) M.P.H.T. 31 (06}. . in the case of Vidya Shankar Tiwari ($upra). atter a period of tour years from the date of fixation of saiary of the petitioner, he was directed to deposit the exoess amount. This Court held that for the mistake of the respondentiemptoyer. the petitioner could not be penalized without following principles of natural justice. Before asking the petitioner for making refund of exha payment, no opportunity of hearing was afforded to the petitioner. The petitioner 1‘) x Thakur had adiusted himsetf to the facts of the case and had utilized the money what was {egauy and duly paid to him. No opportunity of hearing wa5 given to the petitioner before the impugned order was passed and as such the same is unreasonable. arbitrary and deserves to be quashed. ' . in view of the foregoing, this petition is allowed. The impugned order dated 31 5.2006 (Annexure P13) is quashed. so far as it relates to recovery of Rs. 33.780/- from the retirai duee of the petitioner. No / order as to costs. Sd/- 5 Satish K. Agnihotri S Judge i