c' Petitioner ResRQndents HjGH COURT OF CHHATriSOARH: BILASPUR Writ Petition (Sl No. 2092 of 2008 Abdul Rauf Qurashi, aged about 61 years, S/o. Shri Afadu! Rahman Quarashi, R/o. Om Nagar, Jarahabhata, Bilaspur (CG). Versus 1) State of Chhatfisgarh, ttsrough Secretary, Home Department, D.K.S. Bhawan, Raipur (CG). 2) Joint Director, Treasury and Pension, Raipur(CG). 3) Superintendent of Police, State Economte Crime investtgation Bureau , Raipur(CG). (Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of india.) SB: Hon'bte Mr. Satish K. AgnihoU-i, J. Prssent: Shri AshokDubey, counsel for the petitioner. Shri Atok Bakshi, Govt.Advocate forttieState. ,p ORAI- ORDER (Passedon 10-4-2008) With consent of leamed eounsei for the parties, the matter is heard finaiiy. 2) By this petition, the petitioner has prayed for a suitable writ or direction to quash the orderdated 3-1-2008 (Annexure P/1) passed by the respondent No.3, directing for recovery of a sum of Rs. 28,882/- from the retiral dues ofthe petitioner. 3) The brief facts, in nut?hell, are that the petiBoner while working as Deputy Superintendent of Potice in the State Economic Crime Investigation Bureau, Raipur retired on attaining the age of superannuation from the service on 31-1-2007. The petitioner received communication dated 3-1- 2008 (Annexure P/1), whereby it was directed that a sum of Rs.28,882/- be deducted from the pensionarv benefits. 4) The petitioner has filed this petition praying that the impugned order dated 3-1-2008 (Annexure P/1) deducting a sum of Rs. 28,882/- from the pensionary benefits of the petitfoner without affording an opportunity of hearing to put forward his case, to the petitioner is itlegal, arbitrary and unreasonabie. 5) Learned counse! appearing for the petitioner submite that there is no fauit on the part ofthe petitioner and the amount is paid to him in accordance with the pay scales, revised snd fixed by the respondents from time to time. The respondents cannot recover the amount, already pald to the petitioner after his retirement, that too without following the principies of natural justice. Learned counsel further submits that the petitioner does not want to press other reliefs on merit, except that the amount which has aiready been paid to the petitioner cannot be recovered from the retiral dues/gratuityamount on account of excess payment made to the petitioner during that period without affording an opportunHy of hearing. 6) Learned eounsel appearing for the petitioner further submits that the recovery order was passed without affording proper opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, therefore, the recovery order is bad in law in the light of the decisions of Hon'ble the Supreme Court in the matters of Shyam Babu Yerms and others Vs. Union of India and others Sahib Ram Vs. State of Haryaoa and others^ andorderdated 17-11-SMOSpassed by thisCourt !i':ilii: l,.iyiiilii;jffii Raju .'b in the matter of Vidyadhar Tiwari Vs. The State of Chhattisgarh and others9 7) This Court in the case of Vidyadhar Tiwari (supra), has heid that for the excess payment, if any, made to the petitioner, he was not at fault and the amoynt received by him might have been used by adjusting hirosetf accordingly treating the same as his salary. At this stage, directing recovery of the alleged excess amount from the pensionary benefits of the petitioner will not be just and proper. 8) In view of the foregoing and as admitted by learned counsel appearing for both the parties, this petition is aitowed in the terms of the order passed in the case of Vidyadhar Tiwari (supra) i.e. the impugned letter dated 3-1-2008 (Annexure P/1) is hereby quashed. The petitioner is entitled to full penstonary benefits/gratuity amount without any deduction. However, the respondents may take recourse to Rule 65 of the Rutes, 1976, if so advised, in accordance with taw and basic principles of natural justice. No order asto costs. „ i . ! ' SdA ! . . Satish K. Agnihotri Judge ^