•.iy.p-T'/-.i~/^^..i-j-.^^-^._i- ^j-.^r,j-,^^.^-.^.,,-^-..^^.^..^' 7.^^^f~,n'^.c>^.^i..^n^.^^,, IN THE HIGH COURT Gp C:HHATHSGARH AT BILASPUR (CHHATTISGARH) Sll WRrFPETinON (S)N0.6g3S /2008. PETITIONER: Reshmi Bai, wife of Late Nathuram .'.'>'-' ... ! Baj, aged about.62. years, village and post Tamta, Tahsil Patthalgaon, • DistrictJashpur,Chhattisgarh. Versus 1. State ofChhattisgarh, Through Secretaiy, Education Department, Dau Kalyan Singh Bhawan,' Raipur, Chhattisgarh. 2.' Accountant Oeneral, Raipur^ ^Chhattisgarh. 3. District Education OfBcer, Raigarh, Distriet Raigarh, Chhattisgarh. ['. . < t •' ! !. WRn'PETmONUNDERAR'HGLE2260FTHE CQNSTITUTIQN QF INDIA S :t HIGH COURT OF CHHATHSGrARH : BILASPUR Writ Pfctitioff;<No. 6622 of 2008 Petitioner Reshini Bai Versus Respondents State of CIihattisgarh & others WRIT PETmON UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTrTOTION OF INDIA (SB: HonTale ShriSattehK. AguihotnJ.) ShriC. JayantK. Rao,AdvQcate forthepetitioner. Shri M. P. S. Bhatia, Deputy Govt.Advocate forfhe State/respoadents. ORDBRtGrall (Passed on this 10dl day ofSeptember, 2009) Heard. 1. Learaed coiinscl appearing fpr the petttioncr subxnits fhat thc husband of fhc petitioner, wlule worldng as Assistant Teacher in the office ofDeputy Director, Educatiou, Dharainjaigarh, District - Raigarh, was retired fi-om serw.cc on 30.9.1996. TIiereafter, husband of the petitioner dfed on 28.12.1998. Afiter deatfa of flie husband of fhe peti.tioner, by order dated 18.1.2005 (Aanexure P/l) and 5.6.2005 (Aimexuic P/2) a siua of Rs, 30,790/-, wtttt simpte iaterest as weU as perial intercst at the rateof 2.5%, has becn directed to bc reeovered fi?om the piensioniaty toea.efils ba accouM ofexMss payment made to the tiusband ofthe petttkuier. 2. l^anicdcouiis^appeaiiag^fbff^^ husband ofthe petitfoner was not given ariy opportuniQ'' fo explaia about the payment made to him. Thus, fhis order is vitiated for want of eQinpIiaace of the prmciples of natural justtee aud &ir play in action. Leacaed counsel further subDMts that there as no ; fault on fb.e part ofthe husbaad ofthe petitioner aad fhe amouat was paKl to hini iu accordance with fhe pay sGates, revtoed and fixed by fhe respondents fioia time tb time. No reason has been ^signed asto on wluch count fhe exccss payment, if any, was xnade. The respbndeuts caanot reeover the aiaount, alr^idy pajU to fhe husband of fhe petitioner after his death, fhat too without foUowing tiie pnnciples ofnaturaljusticc, 3. Learued counselappearingfortherespondcats/State submits fhat siace while sctfling of thc pensionaty bcnefite it was fi»uisid ^- 4. 5. 6. 7. Ttukut T~- vl^ fhat the excess payment was made to the husband of tfae petitioner, fhat can be rccovered finm fhe retiral dues/pensioiiary benefits. The fasue asto whether recovery of exccss payincnt can be niade wifhout followmg principles of natural justi.ee is ao loi^er res integra. The saiae has been setfled by Hon'bte Supreiae Court in Shyaaa BdbuVCTma andothca»Vs. Utdon oflndtaand otkers1, Salilb Rain Vs. State ofHaryaaa aad other^, P. Tutetdas and others.Vs. Ooveriunent of A.P. and o'thers3 aud furfher foUowed by fhis Court in Vldhyadhar Tlwarl Vs. State of CMiatt^puh & others4, Prem Shankar Dubey Vs. State of CUiatU^purh <b others5 aud several ofher decisions. Tfais Court in the matter of Vldliyadhar Tlwwl (supsEQ, heM fhat for the excess payment ifany, made to fhe petitionCT, when he was notatfaultand the amouut received by himjlnight have beea used by adjustmg hnnself accordingly treating the sameas his salaiy. At this stsvge, directmg recoveiy offhe aUegcd cxcess amQunt fi»m fhe pensionaiy benefits of fhe petitioner wffl not be Jugt and proper. In the iastaat case, the iaapugaed oTdcr has beea passed without affordiag aay opportunily ofhearing to ttie petitioner. In view of thc foi^oing, fhc petltion is aaiowed. The impugned ordcrs dated 18.1.2005 and 5.6.2005 (Anncxure P/l and P/2) m regard to the rccoveiy of Rs. 30.790/-, on aGcouat of excess payment xiaadc to fhe husband of fhe pctitioncr, are hereby quashed. The pctidoaer is entitled to fuU pensionaiy benefits/retual benefits wiftiout any dcductkm. Iftfae aiaount has already been recovered, fhe petitioner is entlfled to the said amount with interest at the rate of 6% per aTiiiiim. Howcvcr, it is open to fhe respondente/State to take rK»uiseto Rule 65 offhe Chhattisgarh Ciwil Semces (pension) Rulcs, 1976, ifsoadvised, in accordance witti law, foUowu^ fhe basic piiaciptes of natural justice.No order asto costs. SatishK.Agnihotri Judge 1{(1994) 2 SCC521} 2 { 1995 Supp (1)SCC20} 3 {A.I.R. 2003 SC43 } 4 {2006 (1) M.P.H.T. 105 (C.G.)} 5W.P.(S) No. 1559/2008dt l.5.2009