HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGAFEH: BILASPUR Writ Petition (S) No. 51 34 of 2008 , i x i Z 1 Petitioner i ‘ i 1 i 1 i \ i l Damodar rasad Chaoudhary, 8f Thakur Ram Chaoudhary, aged abou b3 years Rio vniage & post Kotnmai Tahsvi Gharghoda Dist! Ralgarh (CG) Versus E State of $hhatkisgarh, tmough the Secretary, Tribal Welfare Depaztment, D.K.s. Bhasi/an, DismRaipur (0:3). Jomt Director Tieasury, Account & Pension Bilaspur District Biiaspui (CG) District Education Off'cer Raigarh; Dis/t! Raxgari‘ (CG) Accountant General affice of the Accoumar't Ganera! Pandari, Raipixr (CG) Resp dents (Writ Petition under Articie 2/26 of the Constitution of india.) Single Bench Hon ble Mr Satlsh K Agmhotn, J Present : 3hr! Vwek Verma, counsel for the petitioner. Ms. Sunih Jain, Panel Lawyer for the State. GRAL ORDER r (Passed on 15‘“ day or September, 2098) With the consent of teamed counsel appearing for the parties, the atter is heard finally. 2) The petitioner was initially appointed as an Assistant Teacher on : 19—1-1967 in the respondents department. The petitioner retired from services- on' attaining the age of sUperannuation on 28-2-2007. After his retirement, the petitioner received a letter dated 3-3-2008 (Annexure PH), directing recovery of a sum of Rs.23,778/— on account of excess payment made to the petitioner. 3) Learned counsei appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was not given any opportunity to explain about the payment made ; to the petitioner Thus this order is Vitiated for want of compiiance of the principies of natural Justice and fair play in-action, Learned counsel further ‘ submits that there is [no fault on the part of the petitioner and the amount is x \t o t j \ ' m rsondents rom time to tim. reaso has n assigned asto an which ;c:ount recover the the excess amount, payment, afready paid if any, to the was petutioner m'ade. after The his respondents retirement, that cannot to wfthout follawing the principies of nature! justice. 4) Learned counsel appearing for the rejsbondentsfSiate subm£is that it i true that no show cause notice was givenito the petitioner. The petitioner payment and recovery therea&er.\ justice 5)f The and respondent the impugned authorities action have has not been foiiowed taken the without principies affording of natural an involving opportunity civii of consequences, hearing to the without petitioner. show cause The practice notice or of without passing affording order from an opportunity, retiral dues is is condemned. bad on account n Thus, of this the action fact that of the deducting petitioner Rs.23,7781+ was not also. afforded any opportunity of hearing before the impugned action was taken, 6) ‘ The Hon’bie Supreme Court in the case of Sahib Ram Vs. State of Haryana and others‘ in para 5 has held as under: V 1 misrepresentation "5. However, it is made not by on the account appeltant of that any the benefit of higherpay scaie was given to him for but which by wrong the construction appeitant cannot made be by held the Principal to be at tit! fauit. date Under may the circumtances, not be recovered the amount from paid the a appeliant.” 7) ’ The Hon’bie Supreme Coutt in the case of P. Tuisidas and others v. Government of A.P. and rothersz, observed that the benetit accrued eartier by way of grant of higher pay or revised PaY. cannot be taken away as the arbitrary, unreasonable and expropriatory. 8) This Court, in the case of Vidyadhar ‘ Tiwari Vs. State of I chhattisgarh & othersa has held that for the excess payment, if any, made to the petitioner, he,was not at fautt and the amount received by him might “have been used by adjusting himself accordingiy treating the same ashis 2 1 Atezooe 1995 Supp sc-43 ’(1) soc v 20 3 2006 (1) MPHT 105 (CG) ép f e No n bee o s §alary. t; ths sage, recting recovery of the aiie ed excess amount from the pensiohary 5enefits of the petitioner wiii not be just and proper 9) in View of the reasons mentioned heremabove this petitlon is allowed The Impugned letter dated 3‘3-2008 (Annexure PH) Fleeting recovery a sum 78l— on account of excess payment mede to the petitioner is of Rs 23 7 hereby qua‘shed The petitioner is entitled to full penswnary benefitslgratuity amount Without any deduction if the amount has been recovered the petitioner is entitled to the said amount With interest at the rate of 6% per annum However it is open to the respondents to take recourse to Rule 65 of the Chhattisgarh CiVii Sewices (Penswn) Rules, 1976. if so advrsed, in accordance with law following basic priniples of turaijustice. No ord asto c A‘ i di c na er ostsi