c^\^^ BEFORE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR W. P. (S) No. 5~SV1^ /2009 PETITIONER : Richard Anthony S/o- Late Shri J.F.Anthony, Aged about 63 years, R/o.- Village & P.0. - Musrakala, Tehsil Dongargarh District- Rajnandgaon (C.G.) VERSUS RESPONDENTS 1) 2) 3) 4) State of Chhattisgarh, Through Secretary, school Education Department, D.K.S. Bhawan, Raipur(C.G.) District Education Officer, Rajnandgaon, Collectorate, District- Rajnandgaon (C.G.) Divisional Joint Director, Directorate of Treasury, Accounts and Pension Department, Raipur (C.G.) Block Education Officer, (Drawing and Disbursing Officer), Dongargarh, District- Rajnandgaon (C.G.) WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OFINDIA. The above named Petitioner respectfully submits as under:- HiGH COURT OF CHHATTiSGARH : BILASPUR PETITION iSl RichardAnthony Versus State of Chhattlsgam & others (Writ Petition under Articie 226 of the Constitution of india) SinaSe Bench: Hon5b!e Shri Satish K. Aanihotri. J. Present: - Shri Anoop Majumdsr, counsei for the petitioner. Shri P. K. Bhaduri, PaneJ Lawyer for the State. ORAL (Passed on this 18th day of September, 2009) Heard counsel forthe parties. 1. By this petition, the petitioner impugns the order dated 19-12-2007 (Annexure P/2) passed by the respondent No.3. whereby a sum of Rs.34,465/- has been deducted hoiding it to be excess payment rnade to the petitioner. from his retiral dues. 2. Shri Majumdar, learned counsei appearing for the petitloner submits that the issue asto v/hether recoves'y of excess payment can be made without foliowing principles of natural justice Is no longer res integra, the sarne has been settied by' th@ Supreme Court in the matter of Sahib Rsm v. State af Ha^yana and otf?@rs , and further foliowed by this Court In the matter of Vidysdhar Tiwari v. The of ChhaHlsgaiti & Other^ and Vidya Shank&r Tiwari v. State of M.P. (Now State of Chh^Wsgarh) snd othars3. In th@ instant cas©<the impugned order has be@n passed without affording any opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. 3. Shri Bhaduri. Pane! Lawyer submits that he a'oes not controvert the ailegatjon that no opportunity of hearing was afforded before the impugned orders vvere passed. However, he relies on Ruie 65 of the Chhattisgarh Civii Services (Pension) Ruies, 1976 (for short 'the Rules, 1976') for the purpose of recovery and adjustment of Government dues. 11995Supp(l)SCC20 2 2006 (l)MPHT 105 (CG) 32006(2)MPHT31(CG) X" 4. The contention of the petitioner that even for exercisinQ povver under Rule 65 of the Rules, 1976. basic principies of naturai justice and fair play in -action are required to be followed. In the present case, the State/authorities have not afforded any opportunity of hearing to the petitioner to put forv^ard his case asto why the deductson from the gratuity amount being excess amount cannot be made. The contentlon ofthe learned counsel for the petitioner merits acceptance. 5. This Court. in the case of Vidyadhar Tiwari (supra), has heid that the excess payment, if any, made to the petitioner, he was not at fault and the amount received by hlm mlght have been used by adjusting himseif accordingiy treatlng the sarne as his salary. At this stage. directing reeovery of the aileged excess amount from the pensionary benefits/gratulfr^ amount of the petitioner wili not be just and proper. 6. In view of the foregoing and as admitted by learned counsel appearing for the parties. this petition is allowed in the terms of the order passed in the case of VidyadhQr Tiwari (supra) i.e. the impugned order dated 19-12-2007 (Annexure P/2) deducting a sum of Rs.34,465/- from the retirai dues of the petitioner is hereby quashed. The petitioner is entitled to fuil pensionary benefits/aratuity amount without any deduction. if the said amount is aiready deducted from the gratuity, the same shail be payable to the petitioner with simple interest @ 6% per annum from the date it became due tiIE the payment is made. However, It is open to the respondents to take recourse to Rule 65 of the Ruies. 1976, if so advised. in accordance with iaw. after foliowing basic principles of natural justice. No order asto costs. Sd/- SatishK.Agnihotri Judge Tumane