HSGH'COURTOF CHHATTISGARH: BILASPUi _Peution_LS:LNo, 152S_of20( Ganga Prasacl Markam, S/o. l. Ganeshram Markam, agsdabout years, R/o. Village-Siyadini, Aroud, Tahsil Nagri, Disfrict Ohamtar •\^^}. 1) State of Chhattisgarh, through the schnica'. Educatton and Secreta"/, Jan Shakti Niyojan Department, D.K.S. Shawan, Ralpur (CG). 2) The Djrector, Technica! Education Department, Directorate, Chhattisgarh Raipur, District Raipur (CG), 3) The Principai, Govemment Polytechnic Coiiege, Dhamtari, Dlstrict Dhamtari 4) The Joint Director, Treasury Accounts snd Pension, Raipur, District Raipur (CG). 3) The Treasury Officer, District Treasur/ Office, Dhamtari, Dtetrtot(CG). CWrit Petition under Articie 225 of the Constitution of india.) '. Singie Bench :Hon'bIe Mr. Satish K. Agn'hotri, J. iresent: Shri P.P.Sahu.counselforthepetiiioner. Shri Arun Sao, Govt. Advocate Tor the State. Oi (Passed on this 23" day of March' 2009) Wiih the bonsent o^ iearned counsel appearing for the partles, the r^v ^f*. v^ s»\s^yf4 TTT Jteti,C;i i& HcicSfU Hlit^iiy. "he'petifioner while working as Workshop instructor retired from sep.'ices on atiaining fhe age of superannuation~6n 31-12-2008. (Annexure P/6). After' his retirement, the petitioner rsceived a letter dated 13-2-200S {Annexure P/8), directing recovery of money on account of sxcess paymenl rpade to the petitioner. 3) Learned.' counsei appearing for the petitlonef submits that the pistitioner was not given any opportunlty to expiain aboyt the payment made ^ to i'ne petitioner. Thus, this order is vltiated for want of compiiance of the principles of natura! iusiice and falr ciav in-action. Learned counse! further submits ihat there is no faiilt on the part of the petitioner and the amount is paid to him in accordance with the pay scales, revised and fixed by ihe 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 pald to the petitioner after his retirsment, that too without foliowing the principies of natura! justice. 4) Learned counsei appearing for the respondents/State submits that it is true that no show cause notice was given to the was not calied upon to submit his explanation payment and recove-y thereafter. petitioner. The petitioner payment of aiieged excess 5) The respondent authorities have not fo!!ov»'edthe principtes of naturai justice and the impugned action has been taken wlthout affording an opportunity of hsaring to the petitioner. The practice of passing order involving civii consequences, without show cause notice or without affordins an opportunifr/, is condemned. Thus, this action of recovery from retirai dues is bad on account of ihe fact that the petitioner was not affordsd any opportunity of hearing before the impugned action was taken, aiso. 3) The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Sahib Ram Vs. State of Haryana and others in para 5 has held as under: "5. However, it is not on account of any misrepresentation made by the appeilant tha.t the benefit of higher pay scaie Vir'as given fo him but by wrong construction made by the Principal for which the appeiiant cannot be heid to be at fault. Under the circumstances, the amount p8.id tlll date mav not be recovered from the appeitant." 7) The h'on'ble Sucreme Court in the case of P. Tuisidas and others v. iccrued eariier same av of arant of higher pav or revised isav, cannot be taken av»'ay as the is violative of Articie 14 and 16 of the Constitution of india beins 'ary, unreasonabie and expropriatorv." 1 1995Supp(1)SCC20 ' AiR 2€'03SC 43 8) This Court, jn the case or Vidyadhar Thvari Vs. State of Chhattisgarh & others has heid that for the excess payment, if any, made io the petitioner, he was not at fauit and the amount received by him mjght have been used by adjusting himseif accordjngiy treating the same as his salary. At this stage, directing recovery of the aiieged excess smount from the pensionary benefits ofthe petitloner wiit not bejust and proper. i} in view of the reasons mentioned hereinabove, this patition is aiiowed. The impugned tetter dated 13-2-2009 (Annexure P/8) directing recovery from retiral dues on account of excess payment made to the petitioner, is hereby quashed. The petitioner is entitted to fuil pensionary benefits/gratulty amount wiihout any deductjon. if the amoun't has been recovered, the petitioner is entitlsd tp the said amou.nt. However, it is open to the responde,nts to take recourse to Ruie 65 ofthe Chhattisaarh Civii Services (Pension) Ruies, 1976, if so adviseiJ, in accordance with la'A' foiiowing basic principies of natural justice. No order asto costs. Consequentiy, i.A.No.1 for grant of stay aiso stands disposed of. ^:. Sd/- ^Satisfa^K.AgniKbtri Judge r- 2006 (1) MPHT 105 (CG)