HIGH COURT OF CHHA'l‘TISGARH AT BILASPUR WRIT PETITION (S) No. 1891 ()1‘2009 Pokharaj Dhar Diwan Sfo Late Kamal Dhar Diwan, aged about 66 years, R/o Bohidar Para Raigarh, Tah. & Disn. Raigar'h (C.G.) VERSUS . RESPONDENTS : l. State of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, ' " ' Tribal Welfare Depaxtment, D.K.S. Bhavan, Raipur (C.G.) 2. The Elock Education weer, Tribal Welfare Department, Gharghoda, Tah. Gharghoda, Distt. Raigarh (C.G.) 3. The Assistant Director, Treasury Account & Fension, Divisicn (mice, Bilaspur (C.G.) The Treasury Officer, Treasury Officer, Treasury OEwe Raigarh Tah & Distt. Raigarh (C.G.) WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA _ SB: Hon’ble Shri Satish K. Aggiygg J. r Presem: Shri Anal?! Kesharwani, Advocate for the petitioaer. ' Shri Y.S.Thakur: Dy. Advocate General for the State/respondents. ORAL 0 ER (Passed on 13 day of April, 2009) With the consent ofthe parties, the matter is heard tinally. 2. By this petition, the petitioner impugis the order dated 27.09.2005 (Annexure P/l) passed by the respondent No. 3 whereby it has been directed to deduct a sum of Rs. 14,786/- as excess payment made to the petitioner, from the pensionary benefits. 3. Shri Kesharwani. leamed counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the issue asto whether recovery of excess payment can be made without following principles of natural justice is no longer res integra, the same ha been settled by the Supreme Court in the matter of Sahib Ram v. State of Ham/(ma and others’, and thither followed by this Court in the matter of Vidyadhar Tiwari v. The State of Chham‘sgarh & Othersz and Vidya _ Shankar Tiwari v. State ofM.P. {Now State ofCkkawsgarh) and othersg. In PETITIONER ; ‘ i995 Supp (1) scc 20 ,, 1 2 2006 (1) MPHT 105 (CG) 3 2906 (2) MPHT 31 (cc) . s the instant case, the impugned order has been passed without affording any opportunity ofhearing to the petitioner. 4. Shri Thakur, learned Deputy Advocate General does not centmvert the allegation that no oppm‘tuniiy of heating was atibrd§d before the impugled orders were passed. However, he relies onRule 65 ofthe Chhattisgarh Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1976 (for shon ‘the Rules, 1976’) for the purpose ofrecovery and adjustment ofGovemment dues. 5. _ The contention of the petitioner that even for exercising pOWer under Rule 65 of the Rules, I976, basic principles ofnatural justice and fair play in . action are required to be followed. In the present case, the State/authorities have not a§mded any opportunity of hearing to the petitioner to put forward his caste asto why the deduction from the gratuity amount being excess amount cannot be made. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner merits acceptance. This Court, in the case of Vidyadhar Tiwari (supra), has held that the excess payment, if any, made to the petitioner, he was not at fault and the amount received by him might have been uscd' by adjum‘ng himself accordingly treating the same as his salary. At this stage, directing recovery of the alleged excess amount &om the pensionary benetits/gratuity amount ofthe petitioners will not be just and proper. In view ofthe foregoing and as admitted by learned counsel appearing for the parties, this petition is allowed in the terms of the order passed in the case of Vz‘alyadhar Tiwart (supra) i.e. the impugned orderdated 27.09.2005 (Annexure P/l) regarding recovery of Rs. 14,786/- from the retiral dues of the petitioner is hereby quashed. The petitioner is entitled to thil pensionary benefits/gratuity amount without any deduction. If the said amount is already deducted tiom the gamity, the same shall be payable to the petitioner with simple interest @ 6% per annum. However, it is open to the respondents to take recourse to Rule 65 ofthe Rules, 1976, ifso advised, in accordance with law, after following basic principles of natural justice. No l ‘ . . . ‘ 1 order asto costs. 1 1 V Sd/- t 1 Satish K. Agnihotrl i l . Judge ‘1