HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH z BlLAspUR Writ Petitionjs; No. 252 01‘2008 Petitioner Ksdar Nath Sethiya, aged about 63 ycars son of Lats Shri P.N.Sathiya, Rcsidem of Bada Bazar, Chjimin', Disuict Korea, (C.G.) Varsus Respondents 1. State of Chhattisgaxh, Through Sacretary, Depaltmant of Txibal, Mantralaya, D.K.S. Bhawan, Raipur (C.G.) 2. State of Madhya Pradesh, Through-Secretary, Depaxtment of Tribal and Pichra Varg Kalyan, Mantralaya, Vallabh Bhawan, Bhopal, MP. The Joint Director, Lekha Kosh Avam Pension, Bilaspur (C.G.) 4. Deputy Director, Adivashi Vikash, Ambikapur, Sarguja (C. G.) WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA (SB: Hon’bie Shri Satish K. Agnihotri J.) Shri R.K.Jaiswal, Advocate for tho petitioner. Shri Pankaj Shrivastava, Panel Lawyer for the State/ respondents. O R A L O R D E R (Passed on this 30th Day ofMarch, 2009) With the consent of learned counsel appearing for the parties, the matter is heard My. Learned counsel appealing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner, while working as Lecturer, retired from service on attaining the age of superannuation on 30.4.2007. After his retirement, by order dated 16.05.2007 (Annexure Pl3) a sum of Rs. 1,57,083/ - has been directed to be recovered from the retiral dues of the petitioner on account of excess payment made to the petitioner. 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 g want of compliance of the pn‘nciples of natural justice and fair play in action. Learned counsel further submits that thare is no fault on the part of the petitioner and the amount is paid to him in accordance with the pay scales, revised and iixed by the respondents from time to time. No reason has been assigned asto on which count the excess payment, if any, was made. The respondents cannot recover the amount, already paid to the petitioner after his retirement, that too without following the principles of natural justice. presence of learned Pane} Lawyer for the State. Till date no reply has been tiled by the State/respondents. However, learned counsel for the State submits that it is apparent that no show cause notice was given to the petitioner. The petitioner was not called upon to submit his explanation for payment of alieged excess payment and recovery thereafter. @y ”j l?“ 6. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Shyam Babu Verma and others Vs. Union of India and othersl, has held that the employees who have received higher scale due to no fault of theirs, it shall only be just and proper not to recover any excess amount already paid to them. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Sahib Ram Vs. ) State of Haryana and others‘z , in para 5 held, as under: “5. However, it is not on account of any misrepresentation made by the appellam; 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 till date may not be recovered from the appellant.” 8. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of P. Tulsidas and others Vs. Government of AJ’. and others3 , observed that the benetit accrued earlier by way of grant of higher pay or revised pay, cannot be taken away as the same is violative of Article 14 and. 16 of the Constitution of India being arbitrary, unreasonable and expropriatory. 9. This Court in the matter of Vidhyadhar Tiwari Vs. State of Chhattisgarh 85 others", held that for the excess payment if any, 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, directing recovery of the alleged excess amount from the pensionaiy benefits ofthe petitioner will not be just and proper. 10. In view of the forgoing, the petition is allowed. The impugned order dated 16.05.2007 (Annexure P! 3) in regard to the recovery l {(1994) . 2 sec 521} 2 {1995 Supp (1) scc 20} 3 {A.I.R. 2003 so 43} 4 {2006 (1) M.P.H.T. 105 (C.G.)} of Rs. 1,57,083/ —, on account of excess paymezlt made to th¢ patitioner, is hereby quashcd. The: petitioner is entitled to full the amount has already 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/ State to take recourse to Rule 65 ofthe Chhattisgarh Civil Semces {pension} Rules 1976 1f so adwsed 1n accordance With law followmg the bas1c pnnc1ples oi natural Justice. No order asto costs. t r Sdl- a A ‘ tlShK giiihotr‘l