i$Sx?s ^ M H1GH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BlLAi rPETITION(S)No.241 PETmONER S.8. Gupta, S/o Late Salisram Gupta, aeed 66 yeare, Retd. Laiid Coiiserv-ator Officer, R/o J.P. Vihar, House No.S/2/38, RESPONDENTS : State ofChhattisgarh. ttaroueh IS Entitlement. Qffice of Accountant General, Pagaiiya Coinplex, Bus Staiid, Paiidri, Raipur (CG). . Joint Director, Treasury, Accouiits and Pension, Jagdalpzur (CG). «Ui, Cfahattissarh. Raipur (CG). WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITm'ION OF INDIA Assiils^ Present: Sliri S.K. Kushwalia, Advocate for the petitioner. 2. (Passed on 22m day of April, 2009) By this petition, tfae petitioner impugns the order dated 22-3-2005 (Annexure P/l) passed by the respondents whereby it has been directed to recover a sum of Rs.60,093/- as excess payment ma.de to the petitioner, from the pensionary benefits. S.hri Kushwaha, leamed counsel appearing for the petition.er submits that the issue asto whether recovery of excess payment can be made without foUowing principles ofnaturai justice is ao longer res integra, fhe same has been settled by the Supreme Court in fhe matter of Sahib Ram v. Stafe of Haryana and ofhers , and furfher followed by this Court in the mafter of Vidyadhar T'.war'. v. The State of Chhattisgarh & Otker/ and Vidya Shankar Thvari v. State ofM.P. fl-fow State of Chhattisgark) and other/ and thereafter followed ia several decisions. In the instant case, the * 1995 Supp (I) SCC 18 2 2006 (1) MPHT 105 (CG) 32006(2)MPHT31(CG) A;. ^ •^ ^-^. ss ^fc "s.. order has been passed without aflfordine anv opportunity of ^f i 3L ^/ Leamed counsel appeariag fbr the respondents in support ofthe impugned order siibmit that on calculation ofthe pensionary benefits, it was fouad that the petitioner was paid a sum ofRs. 60.093/- in excess. Therefore, the impugned order without notiee is just and proper. It appears fhat Ihe respondents have completely ignored the !aw laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. m Shyam Babu Verma and others v. Union of India & Others , while tafcing such step and as such, stand of the respondent-authorities is not sustainable. Any order involvms civil (evil) consequences cannot be passed witiiout affordina an opportunity ofhearuiE In view ofthe foregoing and as admitted by leamed counsel appearing fw the parties, this petition is allowed in the tenns ofthe order passed in the case of Vidyadhar Ti-wari (supra) i.e. fhe impugaed order dated 22-3-2005 (Annexure P/l) regarding recovery of Rs.60,093/- from the retiral dues of the petitioner is hereby quashed. The petstioner is entitled to fail pensionary benefits/gratuity amount without any deduction. If the said amount is atready deducted from the aratuity, the same shall be payable to the petitioner with simple interest @. 6% per armum. However- it is open to the respondents to take recourse to Rule 65 ofthe Chhattissat'h Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1976, if so advised, in accordance with law, after following basic principles ofnaturaijustice. No order asto coste. Sd/- SatishK. Agnihotn Judge Qowu