s' c^ ^^z INJTIEHIGHCOURTOFJUDICATUREOFCHHATTrSGARH ATBILASPUR W.P.fS.lNO. S 630 /2009 PETITIONER: ^^ ^f>'v ^•'^" ^ "'^y '^\\T' Radheshyam Patel !~^v ^.^« '.^'f^; / .^^w ^^^w Retired Head Master S/o Ghasi Ram Patel, Aged al3out 67 years, R/o VUlage & Post Gobersinha, Block Baram.kela, District Raigarh(C;G.) VERSUS RESPONDENTS 1. ' State ofChhattisgarh: Through The Secretary, Scliool Education Department, D.K.S. Bliawan, RaipurfC.G.) 2. The Jomt Director Treasury Accountant and Pension BUaspur, District Bilaspur (C/G.) 3. The Dictrict Education Officer , Raigarh, District Raigarh (C.G.) 4. The Block Edueation Officer, Block- Baramlcela, District Raigarh (C.G.) . WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA POR ISSUANCE OF WRTT IN NATURE OF MANDAMUS CERTTORARY OR ANY OTHER"WR[T OF LIKEJWTURE ETC. The petitioner most humbly and respectfuUy begs to -~ submit as under : 11 litllrtftfc^ ^-d"**^ Jtalri^K ^ VU-l":hi=j ilflllnfl HiGH COURTOF CHHAmSGARH : BII.ASPUR WRrT PETiTION. (S) N0. OF 2009 PETITIONER RESPONDENTS Radheshyam Pate! Versus State of Chhattisgarh & Othere ^ft/rit petition under Article 226 of the Constitulion of India) Single Bench : Hon'ble ShriSatish K.^nihotri, J. Present:- Shri D.R. Patel, counsel for the petitioner. Ms Smita Ghai S6S,. PL for the State. ORDER(ORAU (Passed on this 10 day of September, 2009) 1. Heard learned counsel for the parties. ^. By this petition, the petitioner impugns the order dated 27-5-2004 (Annexure P/2) passed by the respondent No.2, whereby a sum of Rs.58,500/- has been deducted holding It to be excess payment made to the petitioner, frwn his retiral dues. 3. Learned counsel appearing for ths pgtitjoner submits that the issue asto whether recovery of excess payment can be made without following principles of natural justice is no longer res lnSegra,Vt\e same has been settled by the Supreme Court in SaWft Rain v. State of Haryana and offiere , and further followed by this Court in Vidyedtiar Tlwan' v. The State of ChhaVisgarh & Others1 & Vldya S/iankarTmari v. State of M.P. {Nwf State of Chhattisgarti) and others, In the instant case, the impugned order has been passed without affording any opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. 4. Learned counsel appearing for the Stat® does not controvert the allegation that no opportunity of hearing was afforded before the impugned orderswere pa^ed. However,learnedcounsel reBes on Rule 65 of the Chhattisgarh Civil Servlces (Pension) Rules, 1976 (for short the Rules, 1976') for the purpose of recovery andadjustment of Govemment dues. 5. The contention of the petitioner that even for exeroising power under Rule 65 of the Rules, 1976, basie principtes of natural justice and fair play in action are required to be followed. in the present case, the State/authorities have not atforded any opportunity of hearing to the !l995Supp(1)SeC20 22006(1)MPHT105(CG) 32006 (2)MPMT 31 (CG) Gowri 2JJ\ petitioner to put forward his case asto why the deduction from the gratuity ampunt being excess amounl cannot be made. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner merits acceptance. This Court, in Wdyadhar Twari (supra), has held that the excess paymerrt, if any, made to the petitioner, he was not at fault and the amount received by him might have been used by adjusting himseif accordingly treating the same as his salary. ftt this stage, directing recovery of the alleged excess amount from the pensionary benefits/gratuity amount ofthe petitionerwillnot bejust and proper. In view offoregoing and as admitted by leamed counsel appearing for the parties, this petition isallowed inthe terms oftheorder passed in Wdyadhar Tiwart (supra) i.e. the impugned order dated 27-5-2004 (AnnexureP/2) deducting a sum of Rs.58,500/- from the retirai dues of the petitioner is hereby quashed. The petitioner is entitled to full pensionary benefits/gratuity amount without any deduction. If the said amount is already deducted from the gratuity, the same shall be payabie to the petitioner with simpte interest @ 6% per annum from the date it became due till the payment is made. Howeyer, it is open to the respondents to take recourse to Rule 65 of the Rutes, 1976, if so advised, in accordance with !aw, after foltowing basic principles of naturai justtee. No orderasto costs. „.. ^-'•y^.^-f^^^.-'-^--^!y~--—•- Sd/- Satish K. Agnihotri w—£-Z^-\Judge