^ •Vsssi^" HIGH COURT OF CHHATFISGARH AT BILASPUR WRIT PETmON (S) No. 3818 of2008 PETmONER KESPONDENTS M.L.Shanna S/o Late Mohan Lal Sharma Aged about 61 years, R'o Village & Post : Kondatarai Tahsil & Distt: Raigarh(C.G.) VERSUS : 1. State of Chhattisgarh Through: The Seeretary, Health Department, D.K.S. Bhawan, Raipur District- Raipur (C.O.) 2. The Joint Director Treasury Accountaat and Pension Bilaspur Mstrict Bilaspur (C.G.) 3. Chief Medical QfRcer, Raigai-h, District Raigarh(C.G.) WMT PETmON UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF 'mE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA SB: Hon'Me Shri Satish K. AenflwM, J. Present: Shri Ajay Shrivastava, Adv<xate forthe petitioner. Shri M.P.S.Bhatia, Depitty Govemmeat Advocate &r tbe State. ORALORDER (Passed on 04th day of Sqrtember, 2008) With the conseut ofthe parties, the matter is taken up for liearing finally. 1. The petitioner working as Heailfa Assistant in the office ofreroondeirt No. 3, retired from services on attaming fhe age of superamniatian on 31.08.2007. After his retirement, the petitioner received a letter dated 23.10.2007 (Amiexure P/l) directing recovery a sum of Rs. 25.744/- on account ofexcess paymeat made to the petitioner. 2. Leamed counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was not given any opportumty to explain Ihe payment made to tiie petitioner. Thus, this order is vitiated for waut of complianee of the principles of natural justice and fair play in-action. Leamed counsel further suhmits that there is no fault on the part ofthe petitioner and the amount is paid to him in accordance with the pay scales, revised and fixed by (he respondeiits from time to time. The respondents cannot recover the amouiat, already ^. 1 r:ifeh^. ^" -2- paid to the petitioner after his retiremetit, tiiat too without followtng Ihe principles ofnaturaljustice. , -s 1 I " 3. PCT cotitra, leamed counsel appearing for Ifae respoadents/State submits that it is true Ihat no show cause notice was givea to the petitioner. The eommunications made between the olBcers was endorsedto tbs petitioner. The petitioner was not called upon to submit Ms explanaticui for paymeat of alleged excess payment aad recovery thereafter 4. The respondent-aulfaorities have not followed fhe principlea of natural justice and the impu^ied action has been taken witiiaut affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. Thie practice of passing order involving civil eonsequences wifhout show cause notice or without affording aa opportunity, is condemned. Thus, fliis action ofdeductuig Rs. 25,744/- from reft'al dues is bad on account ofthe fact 1&at ttie petitioner was not afForded any opportunity of heariag before the impuaied action was taken- also. 5. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Ihe case ofSahib Ram Vs. State ofHarycam and others m para 5 has held as under: "5. However, it is not on aceount of anv nusrepresentation inade by the appellant ttiat te benefit of hi^ier pay seale was given to him but by wrong coustruetion made by the Principal for whicli the appellant caimot be held to be at fault. Unctor fhe cireumstaiices, tfae amount paid till date may not be . recovered from the appellant." 6. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in fhe case ofP. Twlsldas and others v. Govemment ofAJ>. and others , observed that the benefit accrued earlier by way of grant ofhigjher pay or revised p^, cannot be tafcen )1995Supp(l)SCC20 2AIS.2003SC43 ,&^'i€. iK --^ ^ '•^^ -.-«'" -3- R.,1 awav as tfae same is vibtative OfArticle 14 and 16 offhe C<mstitution of India bemg arbitrary, unreasonable and e}q>ropriatory. 7. This Court, in the case of Mrf/tgd/iar Tiwari Vs. State ofChhanisgarh & other/ has held that for the excess payment, if any, made to the petitioner, he was not at feult and Ihe amount received by him midit c/ faave been used by adjusting himself accordmgly freating tiie same as his salaiy. At this staee, directine recovery of 1fae alleged excess amount from Ifae pensionaay benefits of the petitioner will not be just and proper. 8. In view ofthe reasons mentioned hereinabove. this petition is allowed. The impugied letter dated 23.10.2007 (Annexure P/l) directing recovery a sum ofRs. 25,744/- on account of excess payment made to the petitioner, is hereby quashed. The petitioner is entitled to fell pensionary benefits/gratuity amount without any deduction. If the amount has been recovered, the petitioner is entitled to the said amouat with interest at the rate of 6% per annum. However, it is open to the respondents to take recourse to Rule 65 of the ClAattisgarh Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1976, if so advised, in aecordanoe with law following basic prineiples ofnaturaljustice. No order asto costs. Sd/- SatishK.Agnihom Judge 2006 (1) MPHT 105 (CO)