gfgwg HIGH (SQURT (3F CHEATTKSGARH AT BILASPUR WRET PETITIGN (S) N0. 5349 ofZGW PETETIONER : Indrajeet Singh ”I‘hakur, Reiired Assist. Teacher, S/o. Late Shri Naipal Singh, agad about 65 ysars, R10 Vi§lage and post Salka, Navagaosa Kargee Road, Tah. — Kata, District Biiaspur (C.G.) VERSUS RESPONDENTS : 1. The State of Chhattisgarh, Thmugh — F‘s Secretary; Departmant of School Educatmn, Secretariat, D‘K.S. Building: Raipur: Chhattisgarh. The Block Deveiopment Education Officer, Tah. — Kota District Bilaspur (C.G.) 3. The Compeietit Authority (Pension), Treasuries Account and Pensioxy Bilaspur (CG) /"/ 4. The Joiat Director, Treasuries, Account and Pensien, Biiaspur (CG) QS WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTHUTEON OF INDTA S3: Hon’iale Shri Satish K. Asgréhatri‘ J. Hesent: Shri Sameer Behar, Advocate fer the 33et§tioz1e12 Shri A.S.Kachhwaha, Deputy Aclvocate Genera} fat the State/ respondents. ' oRALjERBER a (Passed on 19“; day of March, 2008) By this petition, the petitioner impugiis the order dated 26.04.2006/24.05.2006 issued by the respondent No. 3 (Armexure F/l) for recovery of a sum of Rs. 3,33,842/~ from the retirai dues towards excess payment made to the petitioner on account of wrong fixation of saiary ofthe petitioner. 2. The brief facts, in nutshei}, are that the petitioner was initiai1y appointed as Assistant Teacher on 39.93.1964 at Primary Schooi Khongsara, Tahsii Kota, District Biiaspur. He retired from service on 31.03.2005 as Assistant Teacher. After retirement, he received provisionai nension rom Aprii 2005 to March 2006. Thereaiter, his provisional pension was stopped and an order dated 26.04.2006/24.0$.2006 was issued by the f b) é? rsspondent No. 3 (Armexure P/l) for recovery of a sum of Rs. 3,33,842/- from the retira} dues ofthe petiiioner. Being aggrieved; t‘aw petitioner has tiled this peiition praying that the impugaed order dared 26.04.2096/24.95.2(306 (Annexm‘e 13/1) deducting excess amount &om the pensionary benefits of the petitioner without affording :m opyortemty of maxing to pui forward case of the petitioner, to the petitioner is iilegal, arbitrary and unreasonabie. Learned counsel appearing for tize petitioner sobmits that there is no fauit on the part of the petitioner and the amount is paid to him in accordance with the pay seaies, revised and fixed by the i‘espondents from time to time. The respondents cannot recover the amount, already paid to the petitioner aiier his retirement, that too Without following the principies of naturai justice. Leamed counsel further submits that the petitioner does not want to press other reliefs on merit, except that the amount which has already heen paid to the petitioner cannot be recovered from the retirai dues/gratuity amount on account of excess payment made to the petitioner ouring that period without aifording an oppormnity of hearing. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the respondents/State submits that since the pay of the petitioner was tixeci contrary to the provisions and on scrutiny, it was found that excess amount has been paid, the same can be recovered from the retiral benefits/gratuity amount of the petitioner, even on retirement without affording an opportunity of hearing. The Supreme Coutt, in the case ofSahib Ram Vs. State ofHaryana and othersl, in para 5 has held as under: ‘ i995 Supp (1) scc 20 C»g “5. Hewever, it is not on accoum 0f any misrepresen’caiion made by the appeiiant that the benefit of higher pay seaie was given to him but by wrong construaion made by the Principal for which the appeilant camot be hem to be at fault Under the circumstances the amoum paid till date may not be recovered from the appeliant.” Learned counse1 for the respondents/State relies on Rule 65 of the Chha’Jisgarh Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1976 (for short ‘the Rules, 1976’) for the purpose of recovery and adjustment of Government dues. Ruie 65 ofthe Ruies, 1976 reads as under: }> “Rale 65 — Recovery and adjustment of Government dues:— (1) Ir shali be the duty of every retiiiiig Government servant to clear all Government dues before the date of his retirement. {2) Where a retiring Government servant does not clear the Government dues and such dues are ascertainabie:- (a) an equivalent cash deposit may be taken from him; or (b) out of the gratuity payable to him, his nominee or legal heir, an amount equal to that recoverable on account of aseertainable Government dues shall be deducted. Explanation-l. The expression ‘ascertainable Govennnent dues’ incluees balance of house buiiding or conveyance advance: arrears of rent and other charges pertaining to occupation of Goveinment Aceommociation, over-payment of pay and allowances and arrears of income tax deductible at source under the Income Tax Act, 1961” The contention of the petitioner that even for exercising power under Rule 65 oft’ne Ruies, 1976, basic princioies of naturai justice and fair piay in action are required to be fellowed. in the present case, the Stateieuthorities have not attbrded any onportunity of hearing to the petitioner to put forward his case asto why the deduction from the gratuity amount being excess amount cannot he made. The contention of the learned couns‘ei for the petitioner merits acceptance. 4; This Court, in the case of V£dyacihar Tiwaxi Vs. The Siate of ChhattiSgam & Gthersz, kaq held that the excess payment, if any, made 10 me petiiioner, he was not at fau}: and the amount recsived by him might have been used by ad§ust§ng himseif aecorximgly meatmg the same as his salary. At thiS stage, directing recovery ofihe aEieged excess amouni fmm the pensionary benefEtgfgratuity amouni ofthe yeéiticmer will 110i be jusi aad preper. Ia View of the foregoing and as admitted by 1eamed counsel appearing for both the parties, this peiiiion is aiiowed in the tenns of the order passeé in the case of Vidyadhar Tiwari {supra) i.e. the impugned orcier daied 26.04i2006/24.05.2006 (Annexure 13/1) is hereby quashed. The petitioner is entitled to fuii. pensionary beaefits/gratuity amount without any éeduction. Hewever: the resporidents may take recourse to Ruie 65 of the Ruies, 1976, if so advised, in accordance with law and basic principles of natural justice. No order asto costs. Sd/— Satish K. Aguihotri Judge 3 2006 (1) MPHT 105 (CG) Amit