m INTHEHIQH COURTOFCHHA'mSGARH : BILASPUR Petitioiier Writ Petifioa (S) No. 4637 of2008 Joiias Bara, soa of Late Sukas Bwa, aged about 64 years, Retired Head Master, residcnce of Shefcharpiu-, Tahsil Pattbdgaoa,' DistrictJashpur, ChhattisgaA. Respondents w. -ffi Versus 1. 2. 3. 4. State of Chfaattisgaite, TIaou^t Secretaiy, Departffleat of Tribal Wctfaie, Osea Ka^fan Siagh Bhawau, Raipur, CUhatttsgarIi. ' The CoauiuSsioaer, 'Kibsd Weffiu-e, D.K.S. Bhawan, Ra4»ur,Ghhatti^arIi. Thc Joiat Daiector, Aecouate Ticasuiy and Pensaoa.Ma^n.tt. ChIiattisgMdi. > The Assistaat Duector, Tribai DeveElapnaait, Jashpar, Ciihattisgalt. WRrrPETmON UNDER ARTICLE 2260PTHE CONSnTUTIONOI''mDIA ! (SB: HonTile Shri Satfsh K. Agniliotei J^ Shri C. Jsyant K. Rao.Advocate forlhepetUjoner. SfMa P. & .Kiaduri, iPaael^latfyw&»-llie icspmuients. O^BER , . ':i . ^Piassea.a ^m»2S«bt)^F<rf'August,200^ Witti the conscnt of teacaed couaMi^^-^^x'aring for tlie paaties, ttieinatter is heanifuialty. The petitfoaer, wfailc wwldng as Head Master ia fhe Educaton Dcpartiaeat, retired fi'OIU acnricp nn nttaintng ttaft ngK of supeiannuationon 31.5.2006. AflierIusrotueiBent.thcpettttoxier reeewed the oiderdated 21.12.M06 aaid 29.5.2006 (Aimexure P/l), duicctiag reeoveiy ofasum ofRs. 78,788/- on accouat <rf excess payment inade to the petitioaer. Leamed counsel ^peani^ for flie -petUaawr sulBaMts tttat Rs. 50,773/- toas atoeadybcen iiecovered fi»inthe petition®T.TIae petitioner was not given aay opportuiu^' to csqrian about tfae payment inade to the petitioner. Thus, fhis twler is vMnted for waat of coMpliance of the prmciptes of iiatUEEd jastice aad &ir pl^ ia action. Leataed TOunScl fiitrther sutonuts tbat ttere va B.Q fautton the part ofthepetittoneraidtfaeaaKnurt^fayaidtoMtB ia accoidaucc witti the pay scaies, icvteed and flxed by Ae respondcnts fiom timc fo tuae. No reasoa IM been assa^ied asto "V ^3& - T/- on wlucli count the exccss payaaea.t, if aay, was aiale. 'Cbe respoiidents caaaot recover thc sasiowa.t, sSteady paid to the petitioner afier lus SBtireiaent, that tex> without firilowiag the piinciples ofiiatural justice. 4. Leamed couasel appeariB^ for the Beapoadeaite/State siibarfts that it is true fhat lio show causc n.0ticc was pvea to the petitipncr. Ttie pctitioner was inat caUed upon to subaiit te» cxplaaatfon for payment ofdleged excess paymeat and recBvery thcieafter. 5. Tbe respondent-authorities have xiot fojlowed the ^Bic^pies of natural justiee aad ttoela^eugnffitiactian Iias beenlatoa wittiBUts. afifordtogaaoppoitinut^oftaearn^tofliepetitiwieT.TIteptatrt^ of passu^; orier iavolring civfl cBnsequeaees,. williout show canse notfce <w wifhaut a@(Mdutg;«si:oppQetoni^is ooademiied. Thus, this.acticm otdteductn%I^ 7B,5'«8^flx>«;rotoaal«^^ bad oit- account of the fact Uiat 0»epetilioner. was aot a&cded - aay opportuiHty of heanag bcfore the impugaed ^rtton was taken. 6. The Hon'blc Supreme Courtia (hc naatterof Sakttt^lain^lto.' SttrteofHaaynaaadtttlieiri-, iapataS held, as -uader: '%. However, it is not on accoiiat ofany BusiepBeaentatiDa made bytfae appeBaBtthatthe benefitoffai^herp^scateiBas given to him-but by waong constFuctioaiinadc bytte ffrmcipal for w.hicb the appellaat Ganaot be hcld to be at feulfc Uirier the cacuinstances, tbe amount paid tiB drtc mty not toe recoveiied froia thc appeBant." 7. The Hon.'bte Supreme Court to fhfi mrtter of P. TnhUlnaaaA othera'Ws. €tove»iBaeBfc<»€JfcP.aaA:otter^,ob8etv»dfhatthe bcnefit accrued earller by way of graat of lugher pay or i-ewtecd pay, caunot betetoenaway as fhc sameis wurialireofArtkde 14 and 16 ofthe ConstitutionofIxuiJabeingarbitCTuy, uiH'eastMabfe aad cxpiopriatoiy. 8. This Court ia the matter of mdlqradlutt; ntnnd; TOK tttate a( Chhattfagwli d»otliei»3,hdd thatforthe cscccss papaeatifaiiy; inade to the petitioiier, he was not at fault and'ttie aaiauat ^ ' { 1995 Supp (1) SCC 20} 2{A.I.R.2003SC43} '{2006 (1) M.P.H.Ti l05(C.O.& ^Ez^ia^0si^w<fft. .a» u' 9. Thakur received by IBBB might have becn uscd by adyistiag hin^elf accoida^ty teeatii^ the sanae aa las salaiy. At flas stage, directu^ recoveiy of the alleged excess aiaoant finan the pcnsioaaiy bencfite ofthc petitioner wffl notbejust aad pioper. In view of the foi^oing, tfae petitioa is allonred. TMe hapugned oiders dated 21.12.2006 aiid 29.5.2006 (Am»exuro P/1), duccting iccoveiy of Rs. 78,788/-, oa aecount ofcxccss paymeat madc to the pctitfoner, is hereby quashed. 'raie pctittona- is cntiflcd to full pensioiiaiy bencfite/grataity ainoant wl&out any dcduction. If thc aniount has already been recovered, the petltioner is entitled to the said anaount wlth nitetest at the Bate of 6% per flnniiTn. Howevcr, it is opcn to fhe respoaitenla^State to tatee a?ecoursc to Rule 65 of the Chtoattisgarh Cnril Suvices (Pension) Rules, 1976, if so adviscd,; to acGOBdaace with IEST, followii^ fhe basio prinGJptes of aatyral justice, No oider asto costs. SdA: .:,,.; SatishK.Agnaiiotri :f3svr^ JuSge'i: : : • -w