^ HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH : BILASPUR Writ Petitipn (S) No.2001 of 2009 PETITIONER RESPONDENTS 3 4 5 M.P. Chaturvedi, S/o Kushal Prasad Chaturvedi, aged about 61 years, Retired Assistant Grade-111, R/o Village and Post Madanpur, Kharsiya, District Raigarh Versus The State of Chhattisgarh, through the Secretary, Department of Education, D.K.S. Bhawan, Raipur(CG). The Joint Director, Treasury, Account and Pension, Bilaspur-Division, District Bilaspur (CG). District Education Officer, Raigarh, District Raigarh (CG). Block Education Officer, Kharsiya, District Raigarh (CG). Principal, Government Higher Secondary School, Kharsiya, District Raigarh (CG). (Writ petition under Article 226 ofthe Constitution of India) Single Bench : Hon'ble Shri Satish K. Agnihotri, J Present: Shri Ramakant Pandey, counsel for the petitioner. Shri Y.S. Thakur, Dy. Adv. General with Ms Smita Ghai, Panel Lawyer for the State. ORAL ORDER (Passed on this 17th day ofApril, 2009) 1. By this petition, the petitioner impugns the order dated 25.3.2009 (Annexure - P/1) passed by the respondent No.5 whereby it has been directed to deduct a sum of Rs.69,239/- as excess payment made to the petitioner, from the pensionary benefits. 2. Shri Pandey, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the issue asto whether recovery of excess payment can be made without following principles of natural justice is no longer res integra, the same has been settled by the Supreme Court in Sahib Ram V. State of Haryana and others1 and further followed by this 1 1995Supp(1)SCC20 ^%3^^ ,1 Court in Vidyadhar Tiwari Vs. TheState of Chhattisgarh & Others2, and Vidya Shankar Tiwari v. State M.P. (Now State of Chhattisgarh) and Others . In the instant case, the impugned order has been passed without affording any opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. 3. Shri Thakur, learned Deputy Advocate General does not controvert the allegation that no opportunity of hearing was afforded before the impugned order was passed. However, he relies on Rule 65 of the Chhattisgarh Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1976 (for short 'the Rules, 1976') provides for recovery and adjustment of Government dues. 4. The contention of the petitioner that even for exercising power under Rule 65 of the Rules, 1976, basic principles of natural justice and fair play in action are required to be followed. In the present case, the State/authorities have not afforded any opportunity of hearing 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. 5. In view of the foregoing and as admitted by learned counsel appearing for both the parties, this petition is allowed in the terms of the order passed in Vidyadhar Tiwari (supra) i.e. the impugned order dated 25-3-2009 (Annexure P/1) regarding recovery of Rs.69,239/- from the retiral dues of the petitioner is hereby quashed. The petitioner is entitled to full pensionary benefits/gratuity amount without any deduction. If the said amount is already deducted from the gratuity, the same shall be payable to the petitioner with simple interest @ 6% per cent per annum. However,it is open to the respondents to take recourse to Rule 65 of the Rules, 1976, if so advised, in accordance with law, after following basic principles of natural justice. No order asto costs. Gowri Sd/- Satish K. Agnihotri Judge ! 2006 (1)MPHT 105 (CG) '2006(2)MPHT31 (CG)