%1W}F IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR (CHHATTISGARH) 1 J WRIT PETITION (S) N03§3572009 PETITIONER: M.A.Mansoori, son of late Haji Abdul Shakhur, aged about about 63 years, residence of Post Jarhagarh, Near Samlaya Mandir, Ambikapur, District Sarguja, Chhattisgarh‘. VCI‘SUS Respondents 1. State of Chhattisgarh, Through Secretary, Water Resources Department, Dau Kalyan Singh Bhawan, Raipur, Chhattisgarh. 2. The Joint Director, Accounts Treasury and Pension, Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh. . Executive Engineer, Water Resource Department, Block No.2, Ambikapur, ‘1) Chhattisgarh. / WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA 1. PARTICULARS OF THE PETITIONER(S): As mentioned in the Cause title’ 2. PARTICULARS OF THE RESPONDENT(S): As mentioned in the Cause title. TM g '2 FHGHCOURT OF CHHATIISGARH AT BILASPUR WRIT PETITION (S) No. 3535 0f2009 SB: Hon’hle Shri SatiSh K. Agnihotri. J. V, ‘, Shri C.J.K.Rao, Advccate for the petitioner. Shri P.K.Bhaduri; Panei Lawyer for the Statefrespondents. v OgDER ORAL) (Paswd on O7 3 day of November, 2009) Heard bathed counsel for the parties. The petitioner impugns the order dated 07m August, 2006 (Annexure P/l) on the ground that an amount of Rs. 21,468/- has been directed to be recovered from the retirai dues ofthe petitioner. Shri Rae, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the issue asto Whether recovery of excess payment for r10 fault of the empbyee can be made Without following principles of natural justice is no longer rer integral, the same has beerl settled by the Supreme Court in the matter of Sahib Ram v. Stare/ofHmyam am! othersl, and further followed by this Court in the matter of Z/E'eivadkar Tiwarz‘ v. The State of Chkam'sgark & Othersz and L’Edya Sharaicar Er'i‘warz‘ v. State of MP. (Now State of Chhattz’sgarh) and wharf. In the instant case, the impugned ordw hes been passed Without aEording any, opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. Present: w 1 1995‘ Supp (1) soc 20 f 2006 <1) MPHT 105 (CG) ° 2006 (2) Meter 31 (CG) WRIT PETITION UNDERIARTICLE 226 OFJ‘HE CONSTTTUTION OF INDIA ' PETETIONER : M.A.Mansoori. RESPONDENTS VERSUS State ,iC: kJI 3. Shri Bhaduri, leamed Fanei Lawyer does no‘; comroveri ma allegation that n9 oppommity of hearing was afforded bafore the impugned orders were passed. However, he rehes on Rule 65 of the Chhattisgarh Civii Services (Pension) Ruies, 1976 (for shmt ‘the Rules, 1976’) for the purpose of recovery and adijustmem of Government dues. 4. The contention of the petitioner that even for exercising power under Rule 65 of the Rules, 1976, basic prineinies of nature} justice anci fair play in actien are required to be followed. In the present case, the State/authorities W have not affortied any opportunity of heaping to the petitioner to put forward his case asto Why the deduction from the gratuity amount being excess amount cannot be made. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner merits acceptance. This Com, in the case of Vidyadhar Tiwarz’ (supra), has held that the excess payment, if any, made to the petitioner, he was not at fault and the amount received by him might have been used hy adjusting himseif accordingly treating the same as his salary. At this stage, directing recovery of the alleged excess amount from the pensionary benefits/gratuity amount ofthe petitioner will not be just and proper. 6. in Syeci Ahead Qadz‘r’k: others v. State ofBz'har & Others", the Supreme Court observed that excess payment of emoluments/allowances cannot be recovered if the excess amount was not paid on account of any mis- representation or fraud on the part of the employee and if such excess payment was made by the empioyer by applying a wrong principle for calculating the pay/allowances or on the basis of a particular interpretation of rule/order. which is subsequently found to be erroneous. I (2009,) 3 SCC 415. 991 It is not the case of the respondems that the excess payment has bsen made to the petitioner (m account of any mis—representation or fraud on the part of the potitioner. The Excess payment mighi have been made by wroag caleula‘iion or Wrong intemretation ofthe provisions of law, if any. In View of the foi‘egoing ami for the reasons stated hereinahove: this oet'ition is allowed. The impugned orders dated 07th August, 2006 (Amnexme P/ 1) regarding recovery of RS. 21,468f- from the reiiral dues of {he petitioner is hereby quashed. The petitioner is entitled to fuil pensionary benefits/gratuity amount Without lany deduction. If the said amount is aiready deducted, the same shall be payabie to the petitioner with simpie interest @ % per annnm. No order asto eostswr I“ 1 ‘ ki\~ ' 1: Sd/— Satish K. Agnihotrij,, Judge Amit