.'/"/' '•i i ^&^ "%. -^^ i ^..'^ I HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGN!IH: BILASPUR Writ Petitton (S) No. 4979 of 2008 Petitioner Panchu Rs»n Sonboir, S/o. Late Shri Hirday Ram Sonboir, aged about 62 years, Retired U.D.T. Govt. High School, Singhola, District Rajnandgaon Respondents Versus 1) State of Chhattisgarh through the Secretary, Tribal Development S^partment, D.K.S. Kiawan, Raipur 2) The Divisional Joint Director, Traasury Account and Pension, Raipur Divtsion Raipur (CG). (Wr'rt Petition under Article 226 of ttie Constitution of N^dia.) Single Bench : Hon'ble Mr. Satish K. Agrahotri, J. Present: Shri AjayShrivastava, counsel for the petitiwer. , Shri Y.S. Thakur, Dy. Advocate Gwierat for the Stat®. ORAL ORDER (Passed on this 8th day of SeptenRber, 2008) l- With the consent of tearned counsel appearing for the parties, the matter is heard finally. 2) The petitioner working as Upper DMsion Teacher, Govt. Primary School, Kosalnar, Block Narayanpur in the Tribal Development Department, retired from sen/ices on attaining the age of superannuatien on 31-S-2CX^. After his retiremwit, the petttioner received a letter dated 24-7-2008 (Annexure P/1), directing recovery of a sum of Rs.40,701/- on accounk of excess payment made to ttie petitioner. , 3) Learned counset appearing for ttie petitioner submite that tiie petitioner was not given any opportunHy to explain abeut the payment made to the petitioner. Thus, this order is vitiatad for want of eom^lianee of the principles of naturat justice and fair piay in-action. Learned eounsel ftirtt»er submite that there is no fault on the part pf the petttioner arad the amount is paid to him in accordance with the pay scales, revise^l and flxed by tie ^- respondents from time to time. No reason has been assigned ^sto on which count the excess payment, if any, was made. The re^)on<tents cannot recover the amount, already paid to the petitioner after his retirement, that too without following the principles of natural justice. 4) Learned counsel appearing for the respondente/State sutemite that it is true that ne show cause notice was given to the petitioner. The petitioner was not calted upon to submlt his oxpfanation for payment of alteged excess payment and recovery thereafter. 5) The respondent authorities have not foltowed the prtncSples of nafciral justice and the impugned acMon has been (aken without affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. The praclice of pass^ng order involving dvit consequences, without shcw cause ncrtice or without affordlng an opportunity, is condemned. Thus, this action of deducting Rs.40.701/- from retiral dues is bad on account of the fact that th@ petltioner was n©t afforded any opportunity of hearing before the impugned action vwis teken, aiso. 8) The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Sa^iib Rain Vs. State of Haryana and others in para 5 has held as under: "5. However, it is not on account of any misropresentation made by the appell^it that the benefit of higher pay scate was gh/en to him but by wrong construction made by the Principal for which the s^peElant cannot be hefci to be at fault. Under the circumstances, the amount paid till date may not be recovered from the appefiant." 7) The Hon'ble Supreme Court in ttw case of P. Tulaidas and others v. Government of A.P. and others2, observed that th©benefit accrued earNer by way of grant of higher pay or revised pay, cannot be taken away as the same is violative of Article 14 and 16 of ttie ConsUtution of Indta being arbitrary, unreasonable and expropriatory. 8) This Court, in the case of \4dyadhar Tiwari Vs. State of Chhattisgarh & others3 has held that for the excsess payment, }f 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 his !l995Supp(1)SCC20 2AIR2Q03SC43 32006(1)MPHT105(CG) "^y' ''a77s Raju saiary. At this stagQ, directing recovery of the alieged excess amount from ie pensionary benefits ofthe petitioner will not t»just and proper. 9) In view of the reasons mentiened hereinabove, tttis petition is aflowed. The impugned letter dated 24-7-2008 (Annexure P/1) directing recovery a sum of Rs. 40,701/- on account of excess payroertf made to the petitioner, is hereby quashed. The petitioner is entitled to futt pensionary benefits/gratyjty amount without any deduction. If the amount has been reeovered, tfie petitioner is entltled to the said amount with interest at tiw rate of 6% per annum. However, it is open to the respondente to teke recourse to Rule 65 of the Chhattisgarh Civit Servic^ (Pension) Rides, 1976, if so advised, in accordance with taw following basic principtes of natural justice. No order asto costs. —"— Sd/- Satish K. Agnihotri Judge