; mm In 2oo mm (Wu) WWW WW wm éia‘m 3m Single Bench; Hon'ble Mr. Jush'ce Dhirendra Mishm) (Pefifion U/A 226 of Cons’ri’rufion of India) Pe‘l'i‘l'ioner' Sanfosh Sahu, 5/0 Shri Ghasimm Sahu, Aed abouT years, Rfd. U.D.T., R/o HIG-1/484, New Bo hi, Visfar‘ Housing Board Colony, Borshi, Durg,D r’r. Durg (6.6.) Vs Responden'l's 1. Sfa’r Govt. of Chha‘rfisgar'h, Through: The Secr fury, Educa‘rion Deparfmem‘, D.K.5. Bha n,Raipur(CG). 2. Divis onol Join? Dir-ecfor‘, (Treasury and , pensl n),Raipur (CG) Present: Mr. Somkant Verma, Adv. for ’rhe‘pe i’rioner. Mr. P. shrivas’rava, Panel Lawyer for he S’ra‘re. 31.01.2009 Heard. The peTiTioner has filed This e’rifion being aggrieved by ’rhe orde of Annexure P—1 dafed 28.2.2001 passed by respondem‘ No.2 herein whereby a sum of Rs.92,595/— ha been ordered fo be recovered on accoun‘r of excess payment made To he peTiTioner. Learned counsel for The pe iTioner submiTs ThaT The peTiTioner reTir’ed on 31.12.2000 as ForesT uard and Thereaf’rer, he has been ' served‘ with an order conTempiaTi g recovery of Rs.92,595/- 'on \The preTexT ThaT'The same has been pa in excess of his enTiTlerQenT. ///’"" 6 i ‘ r i Wm (WK) WWW Wm WW fly émfaqm Learned ,counsel for The petitioner submh‘s Thaf fhe order impugned is per-se confrary fo law ‘rhe same has been passed wi‘rhou'r giving any show cause notice and ’rhou’r affording any opporfunify of hearing ’ro fhe pefifioner in viola‘r On of circular da‘red 27.5.2008 of Annexure P—2 which direcfs Thai efore effecting recovery from the retired employees a show cause n tice should be issued. He further submits that case of the petitio dated 16* June, 2008 passed in n Mishra V‘. State of CG. & others). Respondents were allowed ti e to file return to the petition vide order dated 10.12.2008, however, no reply has been filed by the respondents. I.have heard learned counsel or the parties. This Court in the matter of Ram Sunder Mishra (Supra) placing reliance on the decision of the Hon' le Supreme Court in the matter of Sahib Ram V. State of Haryana a d others‘ and Vidyadhar Tiwari V. The State of Chhattisgarh & hersz has held that the excess payment, if any, made to the peti 'oner, he was not at fault and the amount, received by himmight ha e been used by adjusting 'himself‘ accordingly treating the same as salary. At this stage, directing' ecovery of the alleged exc amount. from the pensionary is squarely covered by the order (5) No.2820/2008 (Ram Sunder 1 1995/Supp (1) scc 20‘ " 2006 (1) MPHT 105 (CG) N? i m; zoo s i P t s r es . 2 mm ‘ m 20° wwwqaiaaw) 5 W mmm )«5 F benefifs/gr‘a’rui’ry amoun‘r of fhe pe Even for The purposes of exercising 1976, basic principles of nafural ‘ required fo be followed. For The aforesaid reasons, The insfanf pefifion is allowed in terms of The order passed in the case mm WW *symmm ritioner- may no1' be jusf and proper. y power under Role 65 of fhe Rules, usTice and fair play in acfion are of Vidyadhar Tiwari (Supra). The impugned order dafed 28.2.2001 (Annexure—P—l) regarding recovery from The pe’rifioner on account of exces pefi’rioner is en'li‘iled f0 full pensiona any deduc'fion. However, if is open 1 fake recourse To Rule 65 of The Rul basic principles of naTural jusTice. Cerfified copy as per rules. l s paymenT is hereby quashed. The ry benefiTs/graTuiTy amounT wiThouT o The respondenfs, if so advised, To :s, 1976, in accordance wiTh law and _ L: Sd/- Dhirendra Mishra Judge g