é IN THE HIGH COURI‘ OF CHHA’I'I‘ISGARH : BILASPUR Writ Petition (S! No. 3248 01‘2008 Petitioner Dilip Kumar Bhawarkar, son of Shri Moolchand Bhawarkar, aged about 62 years, ' Resident of Ghorabadi, Disnict — Chindwada, Respondents 1. State of Chhattisgarh, Through —— Secretary, Department of Tribal, Mantralaya, D.K.S. Bhawan, Raipur (C.G.) M.P. Versus 2. State of Madhya Pmdesh, Thmugh — Secretary, Department of Tribal and Pichra Varg Kalyan, Manhalaya Vallabh Bhawan, Bhopal, M. P. 3. The Joint Dimctor, Lekha Kosh Avam Pension, Bilaspur (C.G.) 4. Deputy Director, Adivashi Vikash, Ambikapur, Sarguja (C.G.) WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 2261227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA (SB: Hon’ble bhn Satish K. Agnihotri J.) Shri R. K. Jaiswal, Advocata for the pctmoner. Shri M. P. S. Bhatia, Deputy Govt. Advocate for the respondents. O R D E R (Passed on this 27th Day of Februaxy, 2009) The peu‘iioner, while working as Principal in the Government Boys; Higher Secondary School, Chinm‘ri, Dishict ‘ Korea, rethed %m sexvice on attaining the age of superannuau'on on 30.4.2008. After his retirement by omer dated 22.4.2008 (Annexure P/ 1) a sum of Rs. 1,43,467/ - has been recoveled mm the retiral dues on account of excess payment made to the petitioner. Lemned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the issue involved herein, asto whether any amount, which acconiing to the State authorities is an excess payment, can be recovered after retirement of the employee without anording an opportunity of hearing is no longer res integra, as the same has been considexed and decided by this Court in the matter of Vidhyadhar Tiwari Vs. State of Chhattisgarh & others. Shn' M. P. S. Bhatja, leamed counsel appearing for the Iespondents/ State does not dispute the above submission made by learned counsel appearing for the petitioner. It appeals that the respondent-authorities have not followed the principles of natulal justice and the impugned action has been taken without aifoxding an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. The pmctice of passing order involving civil consequences, without show cause notice or without anbrding an opportunity, is condemned. Thus, this action of deducting {Rs 1,43,467[- from retrial dues is bad on account of the fact that the petitioner was not aii‘onded any opportunity of hearing before the impugned action was taken. The Hon’ble Supreme Gourt in the matter of Sahib Ram Vs. State of Haryana and othersl , in para 5 held, as under. “5. However, it is not on account of any misrepresentation made by the appellant that the beneiit of higher pay scale was given to him but by wrong construction made by the Principal for which the appellant cannot be held to be at fault. Under the circumstances, the amount paid dll date may not be recovered ham the appellant.” The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of P. Tulsidas and others Vs. Government of A.P. and othersg, observed that the benefit accrued earlier by way of grant of higher pay or revised pay, cannot be taken away as the same is violative of Arh‘cle 14 l {1995 Supp (1) see 20} . j 2 {A.I.R. 2003 sc 43} Thakur . y {2006 (1) M.P.H‘T. 105 (0.0.» ‘- »fy. W ”3, and 16 of the Const‘tution of India being arbitxmy, unreasonable and expropriatoxy. This Comt in the matter of Vidhyadhar Tiwari Vs. State of Chhattisgarh & others", held that for the excess payment ifany, 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 salary. At this stage, ditecting recovery of the alleged excess amount &om the pensionary beneiits of the petitioner will not be just and proper. In View of the forgoing, the petition is allowed. The impugned onler dated 22.4.2008 (Annexuie P/ 1) in regani to xecovery of Rs. 1,43,467/—, on account of excess payment made to the petitioner, is hemby quashed. The petitioner is entitled to fill] pensionaty benelits/ gtatuity amount without any deduction. If the amount has aheady been recovered, the peh’iioner is entitled to the said amount with interest at the rate of 6% per annnm. However, it is open to the respondents] State to take recourse to Rule 65 of the Ch hattisgarh Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1976, if so advised, in accordance with law, following the basic principles of natural justice. No order asto costs. VO Sd/- Satish K. Agnihotri Judge