^.a •y y- (-M ^ ^ HIGH COURT OF CHHAHISGARH AT BII.ASPUJR WRITPETtTION (S) N0.2026012008 PETITIONER : Satyendra Vlr Pathak, aged about 63 years, son of tate Shri Dhanwant Singh PathsAi, Retlred Sub Enffneer. P.W.D. Dharamjaigaiti, Dirtt. Rajgarti (C.G.) R/o Near Diet Patrapara Oharamjalearti, Distt. RaEgarft (C.G.) VERSUS RESPONDENTS : 1. State of Chh^tisgarh, through Uie Sscretaiy, Departmentof Publlc Worte, Dau Kalyan Singh Bhawan, Raipur(C.G.) 2. The Executiw Engneer, Public Wori® Department, Division Ralgarh Dlstt. Ralgarti (C.G.) 3. The Distrlct Trrasury Offlcer, Distt. Ra^arh (C.S^ WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF TH6 CONSTITUTION OF INDIA SB; Honlale ShriSaHshK. Present: Shri A-N.Bhakta, Advocate for the pdjtioner. Smt. Smlta Ghai, Panel Lawyer forthe State/re^iondents. ORALORDER (Passed on 27th ctey of nflarch, 2009) 1. Wlth the consent of the parties, the matter fs heara flnally. 2. By thls petitlon, the petitloner impugis the onler dated 15.10.2007 (Annexure P/l) passed by the respondent No. 2 whereby It hss been dlrected to deduct a sum of Rs. 25.30S/- as exc^s payment made to the p^ltloner, trom the penslonary beneflts. 3. Shri BhaMa, learned counsel appeartng tor the petltioner submlte that ttie issue asto whrther recovery of excess payment can be made wrthout Toltowing prlnciples of natural justice Is no longer res fnt?gya, the same has been settled by the Supreme Court In the matter of Satilb Ram v. State ofHaryana and otters1, and ftirttier lollowed bythls Court Inthe matter of VMyadhar Tlwarl v. The State afChhsWsgarh & Others^ and Wctya Shankar Tlwarl v. State of MJ^. (Naw State of * 1.935 Supp (i) SCC 20 32006<1)MPHT105(CQ) .--i- CftftatUsgarft) and otherss. tn the ingtartt case, the impugned order has been passed wtthout affordtng any opportuntty of h^ring to the petltioner. 4. By letter dated 01..08.2008, Issued ty the respondent No. 3, the Distnct Trrasury Officer, Ralgarti, has be%i dlrected to recover a sum of Rs. 25,305/- from his gratutty amount i.e. Rs. 2,70,983/- which became payaMe after retirement of the petttloner. A copy of the said tetter Is endorsed to the petitloner by way of intimatlon, as admlttecUy, no show cause ncAlce caUtng upon.the petltloner to ejqalain hte case, was issued prlor to passmg of the Impugied onter which amounts to imposaion of punlshment without observing the prfticlptes af natural justice and Tair ptey in actlon. 5. Smt. Ghal, leamed Panet Lawyer <to not controvert the allegatlon thtf no opportunlty of h^rtng was afforded before the Impu^ied order was passed. However, she relies on Rule 6S of the ChhatH^arti Civil Servlces (Penslon) Rules, 1976 (for short 'the Rutos, 1978') for the purpose of recoveiy and adjustment af Govemment dues. 6. The contention of the petitioner tlrat even for exerctelng power imder Rule 65 of the Rules, 1976, basic prlnciptes of nafairal ju^ice and teir pl^ in actlon are required to be followed. In the prwent case, the State/authortties have not afforded any onrortunity of hearii^to the petitloner to put Tora^rd his case asto why Vhe deductton from the gratalty amount being excess amount cannot be made. The contentton of the tearned counsel for the prtltloner merits accefrtance. 2006(2)MPHT31(CQ) ,;.ai-^T»a ./"/-^''^ *' &, "l ' 'tk :'SacM^ i •?. ^,, \\} ^l .^- %-,.,»--° ;•• 7. This Court, in the case of VUyatihar nwart (suprs), has heW ttat the excess payment, Sf any, made to the prtnkmer, he was not at fault ai»l the amount received ty him mlght have been iBed by adjusUng hlmsetf accordfngly treating the same as hls salaiy. At thls stage, directlng recoveiy of the alteged excess amount from the pensionary beneflt^/gratuity amount of the petftfonerswill not be just and proper. 8. In vtew of the Toregolng and as admitted tsy leamed counsel a ®ai'ing for the partles, thls petition is allowed in the terms of the order passed in the case o1 Vlttyavltiaf Thvari (supra) i.e. the im(»ignedorder dated 15.10.2007 (Annexure P/l) re^rding recoveiy of Rs. 2S.305/- ftom the retlral dues of the petitloner is hereBy quashed. The petitioner is entitled to full penslonaiy beneTits/gratulty amount without any deductlon. However, It Is open to the respondente to take recourre to Rule 65 of the Rules, 1976, if so acfwteed, in accordance wlth law, atter followlng toasic principles of naturaljustice. No onter asto costs. Sd<- . t. ^'ffs S^^e ^Ott1 Arnit