mGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR PETITIONER RESPONDENTS WMT PETITION No. 41% af2006 Natwar Singh Naad (Assistaat Teacher) S/o Shri Baghela Singj, Aged about 63 years, R/o Village-NandeU, Post-Hardi, Tahsil- Sarangarh, Distt-Raigarh (C.G.) VERSU8 : 1) State of Chhattisgarh Through: The Seeretary, School Edueation Department, D.K.S. Bhawan, Raipw, Distt- Raipur (C.G.) 2) The Joint Director, School Educatioa Department, Division-Bilaspur, District- Bilaspur(C.G.) 3) The Joint Director, Aecounts Treasury and Pension Bilaspur (C.G.) 4) The District Education Officer, Raigarh, DistrictRaigarh(C.G.) 5)The Block Educatioa Offieer, Block Sarangarh, District Raigarh (C.G.) 'WRTTPETmONUNDERART[CLE^y227 OFmECONSTmjnONOFINDIA. Sinde Bench; Hon'bleJustice SahriSatish K. Agmhotri. Present: Shri Sanjay Patel, Advocate for the petitioner. ••' Shri Satish Gupte, Dy. Govt. Advocate for the State/respondent. ORDER (Passed on27ul day ofApril, 2007) By this petition, the petitioner has prayed for a suitable writ of direction to quash the order dated 30.11.2005 (Annexure P/3) issued by the respondent no, 3, directing for reco'very of a sum of Rs. 32,900/- from the retiral dues ofthe petitioner, because this amount was wrongly paid to the petitioner owin^to mcorrect fixation of salary. r / /fy y/, ^ 2. The brief fects, in nutshell, are that the petitioner was appointed on r.09.1962 on fhe post of Assistant Teacher under tiie Distriet Education Officer, Raigarh. The saiary ofthe petitioner was revised time to time. The petitioner retired from the post of Assistant Teacher on 28.02.2005. Vide order dated 30.11.2005 (Annexure P/3), issued by the respondent No. 2, it was directed to recover a sum ofRs. 32,900/- from the retiral dues ofthe petitioner. 3. Being aggrieved, the petitioner has filed tUs petition seekiag a direction to the respondents to restrain the respcndents finrn deducting any amount from his retiral dues as the said order has been passed without affording any opportunily ofhearing. 4. Shri Satish Gupta, Deputy Govt. Advoc'ate appearing for tiie State submits that it is admitted Ihat no opportunity of hearing to the petitioner before the impugned order making dedttction ofpayment ofRs. 32,900/- was made. It is also admitted thattiie revision ofpay as well as payment ofrevised pay was not done at the instafflce ofthe petitioner. 5. I have heard the leamed counsel appearing for the parties, perosed the pleadings and documents appended thereto. The respondents cmnot recover the amount, if any, frota the retiral dues of tfae ,1 petitioner, wrthout afibrding an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. The respondents have also not proved that the excess ,'"' ,* payment was made after giving asry opportunity of hearing to tbe petitiorier. To substftntiate his submission, leamed cwnsel appearinj ^fl^ft?^^:^^IS^^S^^'.^'^'^^ L^ s/' for the petitioner cited a decision ofthis Court in Ifae case of Vi<fya Shcavkar Tmari Vs. State ofM.P. (Now State cf Chhattisgwh} and others, reported in 2006(2) MPHT 3I(CG). 6. In case of Vi<fyaSh{mkar Tmart(sapta), aftwaperiod offowyears from tbe date offixation ofsalaryofthe petitioner, he was directed to deposit the excess amount This Court held th^: for the mistake of the respondenl/employer, tfae petitioner could not be penalized without foBowing the principles ofnatural justice. Before asking tfae petitioner for making refund of extra payment, no opportunity of hearing was afforded to the petitioner. The petitioner had adjusted himselfto the facts oftfae case and hadutilizedthe money what was legally and duly paid to him. No opportunity ofhearing was given to the petitioner before tiie impugned order was passed and as such Ihe same is unreasonable, arbitrary and deserves to bequashed; 7. In vew of the foregoiag, this petilion is allowed. The impugned order dated 30.11.2005 (Annexure PS) is qusshed. The respondents are directedto re&ndthe amount, ifany, recovered pursuast to the order dated 30.11.2005 fmm the petitioner. The amoun^ if asy, recovered from the petitioner shall eany the interest as applicable in savings bank account ofnationalized baak frqm the date ofreeovery till its payment. No order as to costs. ' g^y. Satish K. Agnihotri i ^ Judge Amifc 7^7 ~v^