HEGH COURT OF CHEATTISGARH AT BILASPUR 19M l 9% WRIT l’E’l’ITION (S) N0. 7923 0i'2007 Raghunath Patel: S/o Shri Bholanath Patel, Aged about 65 years, Post Office — Barpali, Tahsil - Sarangarh, Distt: Raigarh (C.G.) PETITIONER : VERSUS . State of Chhattisgarh Through - The Secretary, School Education Department, DKS Bhawan, Rainur (CG) The Joint D§reet0r, Treasury Accounm & Pemion, Bilaspur (CG) 3. The Disifict Eti'acaiion OELCer, Raigarh, DiStrict he Raigwrh (CG) 4. The Black Education Gfficer, Baramkela, District Raigarh (C.G.) WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA SB: Hongble Shri Satish K. Agnihotri. J. RESPONDENTS I)‘ Present: Shri Sanjay Patel Advocate for ihe petitioner Miss Suiiita Jain, I’aael Lawyer f0; the State/respondent Ne. 1, 3 and 4. GRAL ()wER {Paased o§ 2w day of April, 2008) With the consent ofthe parties, the matter is taken up for hearing finaliy. By this petition, the petitioner impugns the order dated 24.01.2003 passed by the respondent No. 2 (Annexure P/l) torreoovexy of a sum of Rs. 27,900/- from the tetiral dues towards excess payment made to the petttioner on accoum of wrong tixation of saiary ofthe petitioner. 2. The brief facts, in nutsheli, are that the petitioner was apoointed as Assistant Teacher in the respondent—depamnent and he retired from service on 31.12.2002. Vide communication dated 24.01.2003. issued bv the respondent No. 2 (Annexure PM) it was ordered to recover a sum of Rs. 27.900/- from the retirai dues of the petitioner. 3. Being aggrieved, the petitioner has tiled this petition praying that the impugned order dated 24.01.2003 (Annexure P/l) for recovery of a sum of Rs. 27.900/- from the pensionary benetits, without affording an opportunity ofhearing to put forward his case. is illegal, arbitrary and unreasonable. 4. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that there is no fault on the part ofthe petitioner and the amount is paid to him in accordance with the pay scMm, mvismf; am} i‘Emci iay me a'eggvomimamg JErm’n mm: m tim& Tim m$gmmimis cammi meevar H13 ammam akrezaéy yam m 1hr": pmiiiicmm‘ zafiaz“ hi3 re‘iiramant that mo wiihmmv ifmbwmg ma primipkas; of mimal jumica. LemieCi mumsgi furthar submits mm. tha wtit‘émmr dmw my? want m press other reliafs 01a 1mm; except that a ammmt whigh has aiready ham ptxid to the peti’iioner aamlot be racovered ji‘em he retira£ éuas/gratuity ammmt 0n accoun‘: of $xcess paymeni ma‘ds to tha m t petitioner durmg that period Without affording an Qppot’mmty oi‘ih aéring. 0n $19. mixer hand, learned counsel appearing for the re5pondenfiS/State whmiis that since thg pay of tha peiitioner Wms fixed contrary 1:0 the pmvmions anti 0n scrutmy: i: was fbumi that @xcess ammmt has ham paid; tbs same: can ‘be eceverexi fmm tm retifal bana’iitsfgxamity amount of ms pwihiemr, even ’(m retiremant wi‘whout &iE‘0rding an opportunity ofimearing» Tm Supreme Court, in ma gage of Sahib Rgm Vx" Smm 9fHmyamz am! athersl, it: yam 5 has hem as under: “5..."H0wever, it iss not on. amxmnt of any misrogreoontation made by the apoolian‘k "that; mo bomfii of highs? pay ooaio was givon to him but by wrong; coowuciioo maiie by the Frinoipa] for wh'ici‘: the appaH-am oamot be Ewid to ho at fmo‘t. Uoéer tho circums‘mnoes the amount paid ti‘ll (hie may not be recovereo from toe appoilant.” Learned oounsoi for the reSpondentsfStats rai'ies on Rollo 65 oftho Chhattisgarh llivi} $orvicos (Pomiom Rakes? 1976 (for shori ‘tho Ruies, 3976’) for the pumoso ofrecovory anc‘l adjustment of Governmem dues. Role 65 ofiho Ruios, 11376 reaés as untier: “Ruio {$5 — Rocovery and adjustment of Govemmem duoob (1) E shali be: mo ouiy of ovmy naming Govermneifit oorvam t cloar all (iovsmmom; duos ”oofm‘o {he (We of hi5 retirement. (2) Where a rethring Govemmom: servant doeS {not oioar too Govommeot was anti wok doos are: agoamioahiow {2Q 2m equivaiam cook deposit may ho iakon fiom him; or (b) out ofihe grmuéiy yayabie to him? his nominee or ’iega} Mir; an amoumt oqual to than rocoveraois 011 aooom‘a of osoertainablo Government dues shall bo doéuctoti. Expianation—L Tho oxprossioo ‘ascorminabie {.hwornmem oueo’ iooludog bakmce of hourso buiidmg of convoy/woe advance, arrears of rent and other ohargw portaining io ‘ / 1 1993 aupp u) Sac 20 r o 8“ 9" occupation of Govemmm‘t Ammmmwatimm over navmenrt of pay and aliawamw ami at'i‘eai:$ 0f incmne tax clédtilctibia ai soume undar me hicome Tax Act, 1961” Tha conmntion <)ft%a© petitjener that wen for «axgircmxag gower untier R1116 6§ 9f tha Rules§ 19761 basic prmciples 0f mmmi mgtica amti fair play m action am requireé ‘to he ibilewed. in “the presant casts: the $ta‘ia/auth0riiie& have mt aiferdad any opportunity of hearing t0 ma petitiamr to pm. forwaré hi3 case ask: why The dedlwtion {mm thtz gaiuity amount. being excegs; amount cannot be made. '£‘he oontent£on ofthe ioamod counsel for tho petitioner mm‘its aooepianco. This Comt, in the case of Vidyadhar 'i‘iwaxi Vs. 'I‘he 3mm of Chhatiisgarh & Othorsz, has held “mat tho excess paymaai, if any, made to tho potitionor, he was mt at {aim and tho amount reooivad by him might have boot: mad by adjusting himseif aocordiinglv treating tho samo as his saimy. A4: mm :stagg oireoting recovery of the alleged excass amount from {he pensionary honefitsfgxami‘cy amount oftho yetitioner Wili not be just and proper. m View of {he ibr‘ogoing anci ag aomitted by ioamoti oounso} appearing for bmkh the parties“ this petition is aaowoo m the terms of the m‘oior passec‘i in me 02m of Vidyatihar 'i‘iwzuri (supra) Le. the impugmd order datod 24.£}3..2GO3 (Amiemro W1) rogarding recovory of R‘: 27:9my— from the retira} tiues ofthe potitiooer is: hsreby quashed. The gotiiioner iS e'ntithid to foRi ponsiooary boxlefitoi‘gramity amount without any (ioduotion. Howovor., the ragpondems aro at iiborty, if so aévised, to take recourso to Roda 65 offhe Rules," K9?6, in accordance wi‘ih iaw and basic prinoiplos ofnaiural justke. No ordor asto costg. 7,0» Sdl- Satish K. Agnihotri Amit 3 2005 a) MPH? L05 (co)