@\DL_\®°} HIG§i COURT OF CHEATTISGARH AT BELASPU R Writ ?emim (S) No, 2382 012008 L ?E;’EE1‘;@‘§E§ : Vishnu Prasad Shrivastava S/‘o: Shri Lama; Prasad Sinivastava, Age abotit 63 years, ReRi Asslt. Teacher {U0 Near R.a{i§1e Krishna Tempie, Mungelia Distt. Biiaspur (CG). VERfa‘US Staze of Clmamsgarh Through Secretaw Educatioxx 6% Tribal Weifare Departmmi, DK$ Bhawzm, Raipur {CG} 2, DivigiomE Joim Directm‘ (Treasury, Pension & Accounts) Biiaspur Divisior; (CG). A ( WRIT £3E'I‘ETEQN UNDER ARTICLE 226' OF THE CONSTRTUTKIW OF INDIA) (SB: Hoan'ble Mr. Satish k Agmhatri J.) RES‘PONDENTS &esem : Shri A§ay Shrivastava, Advocate for the petitioner. .S 11% Y.S‘ Thakur, Daputy Advocate Geizcra} wizh Ms. Swim Jam, Page Lawyer for the State. ’ QRAL (mew (Paggeza er. 15%.13: at Fwy-em, 29m!) Wm: the consent ofthe parties, the matter is taken up for hearing, finaliy. By {Ens petitioa. the petitiozxer impugns the order dated 30.03.2006 (Annexure P/l} passed by the respomiem N0. 2, whereby it has been directed to deduct a sum of Rs. 22.018/— as excess payment macie to ihe petitioner, i‘i‘om the pensionary benei‘i‘ts. The brief facts. in nuiSheH, are that the petitioner while working as Hemi Master in the Education Department under the oiiiee of Biock Edueation Eiicer, Mungeh. Distt. Bilaspur, reiired on afmining the age of superannuaiion. The peiitioner receiveé the impugned recovery order dated 30.03.2006 (Amexure P/I). issued by the respondent No. 2, whereby. the ‘ District Treasury Oiiieer was directeii to recover a sum ofRs. 22.018/~ without airbming an oppommity ofhearing to the petitioner. } Leameé cmmsel appearmg for the petitioner submits that the issue as’to whether recovery of excess payment can be made without foiiowing principies of natural justice is no ionger res imegra, ihe same has been sewed by the Supreme Court in the matter of Sakib Ram Vs. State QfHaryana and othersj, and ihrt'her ibiiéweti by this Court in the matter of Wdyadhar Tiwarz‘ Vs. The Sign? QfCkhattz'ygarh & Otkgrsz. Learned counsei for the respondents/State reiies on Rule 65 ofthe Chhattisgarh Civit Services (Pension) Rules, 1976 (for short “the Rules, 1976’) for the purpose ofi‘ecovery and adjustment ofGovemtnent dues. Rule 65 ofthe Rules, 1976 remis as under: “Rule 63 Recovew and aojustment oi Government dues (1) It shall be me duty ef exzery retrrmg Govern; em servant to dear all ’ uovertmaent dues betore the date or his retuement (A) Wnexe a xetnmg government servant does not clear the Crovemnhem (‘hek and sueh dues are ascertamable - ) ant uftue grattmy payade t0 him hts nominee or xegat hexr an amount euua} to mat recoverable on account of ascertamabie Govmh m dues span be deduetu. t4 xmanatron—i Tne emressron ascertamabie Government (toes memues bahuce of houSe buiHmg or convey anee advm Ce, arrears or rent and other uhatges pertatnmg to cecupatton oi Government Accommodation: over—payment of pay and ailowanees and arrears of income tax oeduaibte at source under the income Tax Act, 1961” The contention of the petitioner that even for exercisingpower under Rule 65 ofthe Rules. 1976, basic principies of naturai justice and fair play in action are required to be followed. Tin the present case, the State/authorities have not attorded any opportunity of hearing to the petitioner to put forward his case asto Wily the deduction trom the gratuity amount being excess amount cannot be made. The contention of the learned counsel for the petttioner merits accentance. r’, ta) an equwaient cash deposrt may be tatxen trom him or 1 W: $1 opti) Sm, u 22006 rub/ism ammo Leamed counsei appearing for the State would iimiher submit that there is no iniblmaiion asto whether opportunity of hearing was afforded to the petitioner before passmg the impugned cider. Retum filed by the State is silent about the main issue Le. Violation of principies ofnatural justice which visits with civil consequences and causes sever prejuciiee to the petitioner. This Court, in the case of Vidyaehar Tiwari (supra), has heid that the excess payment, if any, made to the petitioner, he was not at fauit and the amount received by him might have been used by adjusting himseif accordingiy treating the same as his salami. At this stage, directing recovery ofthe aiieged excess amount ti‘om the nensionary benefits/gratuity amount ofthe petitioner will} not be just ané m‘opet. In View of the foregoing, this petition is aiiowed in the terms ofthe order passeci in the case of Vidyadhar Tiwari (supra) i.e. the impugned letter dated 3i).03.2(}06 (Annexure P/ 1) regaining recovery ofamount from the gratuity and other dues otthe petitioner on account of excess payment, is hereby quashed. The petitioner is entitieo to fuii pensionary benefits/g'atuity amount without any deduction. However, it is open to the respondents to take recourse to Rule 65 ot‘t’ne Rules, 1976, ifso advised, in accorciance with iaw, following basic principies ot‘natural justice. No order asto costs. Sd/- Satish K. Agnihotri Judge Sahu