M i ^) IN THB HIQH COURT C CHHAmSGARH ; BILASPU8 Writ Petitioa (S) No. 4635 of2008 Petitioiier Hari Rristiaa Raatt Sarjaal, son ofBeerbal Sai Sagaal, agcd about 64 years, resMence of Kokyaldtar, Tabsfl Patdialgaon, Distnct Jashpur, Chhatdsgarh. Versus Respondents l. 2. 3. 4. 3. -w State of CUhattisgarh, TIuough Sectetaiy, Departmcat of Tribal Welfaro, Dan Kalyan Singh Blmwaa, Raipur, ClLhatti^garii. The Comaussioner, TribaI—WcIfare, D.K.S. BIiawan, Raipur, Clihattisgarh. Thc Joint Dircetor, Accouats Trcasuiy and Pension, Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh. The Assistaat Director, Tiibal Dcvetopiucnt, Jashpur, Cfahattfsgarli. WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLB226 OP THE GONSTnrUTION OF WOtA (SB: Hoa'ble Shri SatisU K. AgmhotriJ.) Sbri C. Jayaat K. Rao, AdvocatE forllie pctitioner. Shri P. K. Bhadun, Panel Lawyer forthe xiespoadentB. ORDER (Passcd on thffi 23th D^r ofAugust, 2008| With the consent of teamed couascl appemmg fw the pmties, the matter is faeaid flaatty. Tlie petitioner, whlle woxluag as Head Master ia fhe Educatifa Department, Betired froai serwce on attamiag thc ^e of superaiuiuatfouoa31.5.2006. Ater lus actuement, the petiliaaer received the order dated 17.8.2006 (Aaaextue P/l), directu^; Becovciy ofasum ofRs. 76,556/«on account of exccsspaymeat inade to thc pctituaier. Lcaracd coiiasd appeariag for fhe petitioaer sutanits that the petitioner was xiot gwen any opportunity to explain about Ite psyanent naade to ttic petitioiier. TIius, this omleT is vitfated ibr want of compliaHee of thc principles of iiatuial justice and &ir play in actioa. Lcarucd counsel further subxaits fhat thwe isao fault on tfae part ofthe pctitioneraad the axnount MpaieKo Irint- ia accoiidance wifh the pay scales, Tevised aad fiseed ty fhe respondents fix>m timc to time. No roason .has been asMgned ast on which cozmt the excess paymeat, if any, was swde. Ttoe ^w -\. respondente cannot recover the amount, atreaiy paM to ttae pctitioner after Iiis retireincnt, that too without foUowfaig the principles ofiiaturaljusdcc. 4. Leamed couasel appeariag for the rcspoadents/State subau.ts that it is truc that no show cause noticc was givcn to fce petitioner. The petitioner was aot calted upoa to subnut tais explanation for paynucnt of aUeged cxccss p^aacnt aad tecovery thereafter. 5. Tbe rcspondent-authorities have not foUowcd the principles of natural justice and flie mipugued actioa has been takea witliout affanling anopportuaity ofhearing to ttoe petittonec. Tbe prw:tiee of passing otder iavolving ciml eoasequences, without »hcw cause noti.ee or wifhout afforcUug an opportanity, is coadeained. Thus, this actioa of deductiag Ra. 76,556/- fiom aetdal dties » bad on account of the fact fliat the petitiDner was not affonted aay opportuiuty of heariag before fhe impugned actfon was taken. 6. The Hon'blc Supremc Court in thc matter of SahMt Rana WK State of Haiyaaa tuid othera1, in para 5 held, as undcE "5. However, it is not oa account of any laMicpBeseato.tion naade by the appellaat that the beneflt ofliigher pay seale was given to him but by wrong constructfon made by toe Priacipal for wluch the appeBant caanot bc held to bc at fault. Under the cueumstances, the amouat paad till date saay not be recovcred fi»inthe appcBant'* 7. The Hon'bte Supreme Court in fhe niatter of P. Tnlridat aad otheni V».Gowenunent of AJR. and uthew2, obsMveddat the benefit accrued carUer by way of grant of h.^hcr pay or revlscd pay, cannot bc taken away as the saine is violatnre of Artfcle 14 and 16 offhe Coastitutlon oflndiabdng arbiteaiy, nnn*a«3aatole and expiopriatoiy. 8. ThisCourtmfhematterofVtdIiyadhwTIwarfVa.Stateof CUiaUtegnIi B* otiiers3, held that for tte cxccss paymcnt lEany, naade to the petitBiicr, hc was aot at fault aiid the aiaoiuit receivcd by him might have been used by adjuBting Iiaaself ' {19$5 Supp (1) SCC 20} 2{A.I.R.2003SC43} 3 {2006 (1) M.R.H.T. 105 (C.O.)} -'^ 9. Thdcur accordingty treatu^ the saae as tus sataiy. At tius atagc, directing recoveiy of fhc alleged excess atttoiiiaat fl?(nn ttie pensionaiy benefits ofthe petitioner -will aot be Just cmd proper. ta view of fhe foigoit^, the pctidon -te aUowcd. TIie impiagaed order dated 17.8.2006 (Aunexure P/I), direGtii^; recovay of Rs. 76,556/-, on account of exccss p^inent made to tt*e petitfoaier, is hereby quashed. The petitioafir is entifled to full penaionary benefite/gratuity amo.iuat wifliDUt any deduatioii:. If thc amouat has alteady been secovcred, tte petitiBncr te entfitted to fhe said amoiaat wttfa m.tci'est at tte rateof 6% pa- aaai.ua. However, it is open to thc Tespoaadeats/State to t^e recourse to Rute 65of the ehbMtis^tfi Civit Sewjces^PenatBi^ Ruaes, 1976, if so advised, in aGCtaxiaaxx v^ tMincJplesofnatuialJusticc. tfo oideE.asto costs. Sd/- SatNiK.Agiultotri r-^: Jud^e: : ^