AF^ HIGH COIJKT OECHHATTISGARH AT BD_ASFUR WMT PETn'ION(S) No. 6225 of2008 PETmONER : Mayaiam Kural S/o Shri Narsin^i Kural, Aged about 63 years, R/o viHaj^ / Post Rajpur, Tahsil Laitonga, District Raigarii (C.G.) ,' ' ' • • • :" • " ; .-VERSUS . RESPONDENTS : l.8tate of Chhattisgarh Iln-ough Seaetaiy D.K.S. Bhawan, Raipur (C.G.) 2. The Joint DiiJectoT, Ascotnats TreasuFy aiid 3. The Eorest Divisional Officer, ForestDivisipn, Jashpur,Tal)sU &DistrietJasIipur(C,©.) WRTT PETTTION lJNDEfcAaTICI^226 OPTBE C€)NgTTTtmQNC INDIA i SB: Htat'BI^SKit SaasSrK. AaBaiotri; J. Preseut: Shri SmL|S ita€%ai,JPane awyerfeti»S^ .. OBALORDER-"Ti;'-<, .' „, (Pa^ed OQ 2t'tday of April, 2009) 1. Chatlenge m this petition is to the (M-dwdated 27.02.2006 whereby the ; respondent-authniEit^ have^l^ ofRs. 4lf)Sl. 2. By this petBEiori, llw petitioaer. itMj^gns ^ 09.02,2005 (Amieiaire P/l) passed ^sy the respondait Nd. 2 whereby it ^jas been directed to deduct a sum ofRs. 26,297/- as exee^ pEQmeHt made to the petitioner, frQmthepensiQnarytoenefiEts. 3. Shn Tiwari,| leamed counsel appearing for the petitioner submitsf that fhe issue asto •whether recoyery of essess payinent can be aiadei wil&out followmgponciples ofnaturaljustice isno longerres fntegra, tt^same has been settle^by the Suprane Court in tiie matter of Scdiib Ram -v. State of Hwyanaand oft^, aadfiirffiCT fi)UovTOd ly tlus Conrt ia^te^ of Vidyadhar 'Tiwesri v. The State af ehhattisgarh & -Otfiers^ m& Vidya Shcmkar Tiwari v.State CfM.P. (Now.State qf'Chkattisgarl^ anS'atlwr/' and thereafter fbllowed in several deeisions. In the asfainti!jcase, the inqHign^ order has been passed w c^ affiwd^ hearingtofhepetitioner. .1 1f w tt995Supp(I)SGCil8 2 2006 (1.)MPHT 105 (CG) 32006©MPHT31(eG) ]1 AiJr ,5. &^ Smt Ghai, lewned Paael Lawyer appeEmng fca- the State/rwpondents in support oftUe impugaed order submits Ifaat on ealculation ofthe pensioaary beaefits, itwasfoundfhat &e petitionerwas paida sum ofRs. 41,031/-in excess. Therefore, the impugned <wder withoutnoticc isjustandpropw. It appeais that the State/respondeirts has compteely igriored the iaw laid dovm by the Hon'ble Safsmne Gwat inShyawi Bahu Perma and others v. Union oflndia-& Others, •wlrile taking suA step and as sueb, stand pfthe respondent-authorities is not sustairiable. Any oHter involving civil (ewU) CQnsequences eannot be passed wilfaout afEordmg an (yportumty ofhearing to theemployee. In view of1he foregoing and as admitted by learaed coiinsel appeam^ for the parties, UMS petition is allowed in fhe tems ofthe onter iMSsed, ia fhe case ofVidyadhar Tiwari (si<pR:i)i.e.theimpugnedorderdated 27.02.2006 (Annexure P/l) regarding recovery of Rs..43,£Bl/-fi-om the retiral dues of the petitioner is hereby quashed. 1'hspetitioner is entitledto foll pffl^ionary feeaefits/gratuity anaount wittiout auy^ If.the said amount is already d^eted fi^ the g-atu^ shall be payahle to the petitioner v^smiplemtere^ @^%|peratmum^ Hov^ respondents to take recourse to Rule 65 ofthe ChhattisgaFli Civil Semces (Pension) Riules, 1976, if so adyised, m aeeordanee wi& I^ following basie principles ofnaturaljustiee.No wder asto oosts. 4rt(r9S4)2SCC521.