HWTT rOTTOT OF rTOffATTTSRART1 AT RTT,ASPT.m VffTTTTONff.1? lTfi^eit^rl.Tm l.;ri;it-Uf~fnftp pift^P/'l Rhoiit 6^ •\?f*WTv -Jt'-"-? •—tp--"'*-"^--•-•<.»••<.• —~- ^ ^"~*.^^ S/o l-lanpado Mufchanee. KeTired ttea.d Master. Uc-chs, Pt'%tlii?iil?i ScliQoI^ OonsanD^ra- ?Con<is2aoii. B'lock Tahsii iCondaeaon, Disirict Bastar(CG). 1. The StBts of OhhattissarE Tliroiish fhe SecretsT^^ Aadim Jati Kaivan Vibhag, DKS Bhawan, Raipur (CG). 2. Assistent Commissioner Aadim Jati Kalvan Vibhag, Jagdalpur (Bastar) (CG). 3. Sambhagiva SamTikt Sanchalak, Kosh, Lekha and Pensioa, Bastar Sambhag, Jagdalpur (CG). (WRTT PRTmON T1NDF1? ARTTCLF 22A OF THF.CONSTm.mON OF NDIA') tlp K. Prp'c-fif'at • Sliri ^tQ'v SS'liri^^^ip^/R /^.f^"'.7;vwie- frsir t^p; ri<?*fit.iorsp'r -y^.^ .^.—-.^.^-^.. . ^y - ^— . „ ^••^.., ^.^^ ».^.»^-.^^.-—...^. Shri Y.S. Thakur. DCTOTV Advocate licnerai for the State. (Passcd uii:eS<h da^ uf May, 2808) .^i:^ith tli€!consc'iit ofthe 'nB.rSies. 1'hQ ni8tter is teken nD fbr h iariag, fisally. 1. By this petition, the petitioser imp'igns the order dated 07.02.2008 (Annexure P/l), passed by the respoadent No. 3, whereby it has beea directsd to deduct a sv.st of P..S. 38,654/- as excess payment siiade to the petitioner, from the pensionaiy be&efits. 2 The brief £acts^ is xiutshelL arpl th^t thc De'titioner while workiiis ^s 1-T^S!t,r1 ^4^?s «ff3rt' TJTi<T?-B S^.^<»n1 T^Qn(?r?ririRtrR 1<rn?-i<lE5a-^<^^ dstnr't Uaol^T ^.^.••^^.^r J.t^.--^W ^•V.-.-y -.^...-Q—tU'--'^—-' -- ^.y — -•^Aj^---^^.'•>/•!* UV^ ^.^.'-- -^.•..-.•.v^y^.''- -^.y ^. • -^.a-JtS- W —, in-i^ t.-i-i.'A ^ Etl'3iiiiiiCT tlic asie o£.sun6rB.twii1:ntion on 31.12.2007. Thc r€'c©iv€idtlw iniDiisiicd rscovQrv ord.c'r. datcd 0'7.Q2.200B (A?inex'nr€kP/l\ issued bv thc' rc'SDOiideiit'No, S^. whc'rebv* thc Oistrict Treasur^' OSacer was directed to recover a sum ofRs. 38,654/- without affording an opportunity ofheamig to ths petitioBer. ?^>:::-at^3t73TB^33 & 'w .^ ><J-/ (B 3. Leamed counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that tfae issue asto whether recovery of excess payment can be made without following principles of iiatural justice is no longer res integra, the same has been settled by the Supreme Court ia the matter ofSahib Ram Vs. State of Haryana and olher^, and farther followed b^this Court in the matter ofVidyadmr Thvari Vs. The Slate ofChhattisgcvh & Other^. 4. Leamed counsel for the respondents/State relies on Rule 65 of the Chhattisgarh Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1976 (for short 'the Rules, 1976') for the puipose oftecovery aasd adjustmentofGoveniment dues. Rule 65 ofthe Rules, 1976 reads as nnder: "Rule 65 - Recovery and adjustment of Govemment dues:- (1) It shall be the duty ofevery retiring Govemment servant to cleai- all Govemment dues before the date of his retirement. (2) Where a retiring Govemment servant does not clear the Govemment dues and such dues are ascertainable:- (a) an equivalent cash deposit may be teken from him; or (b) out ofthe gratuity payable to him, his nominee or legal heir, an amount equal to that recoverable on account of ascertainable Govemment dues shall be deducted. Explanation-1. The expression 'ascertainable Govenunent dues' includes balance of house building or conveyance advance, arrears of rent and other charges pertaining to occupation ofGovemment Accommodation, over-payment ofpay and allowances and arrears ofincome tax deductible at source under the Income Tax Act, 1961" 5. The contention of the petitioner that even fpr exercising power under Rule 65 ofthe Rules, 1976, basic principles of natural justice aad fair play in actioa are required to be followed. In the present case, 1fae State/authorities have not afforded any opportunity of hearing to tiie petitioner to put fonvard his case asto why the deductfon from the '1995Suppl 2 2006(1)M] '3SH3^^^^5^^3 i«.4^iff 9?%S;' ^^••^"•sss^,""i^'^\ L^ '^" 1 -f^SK^ I '"SfcSs' 3 i? gratuity amount being excess amount cannot be made. The contention ofthe leamed counselfor the petitioner merits acceptance. 6. This Court, in the case of Vidyadhar Tiwari (supra), has held Ihat 1fae excess payment, if any, made to the petitioner, he was not at fault and the amount received by him might have been used by adjusting himself accordingly treating the same as his salary. At this stage, directing recovery of the alleged excess amount from the pensionaiy benefits/gratuity amount oftfae petitioner will not bejust and proper. 7. In view ofthe foregoing, this petition is allowed in the tenns ofthe order passed in the case ofVidyadhar Tiwari (supra) i.e. the impugned letter dated 07.02.2008 (Annexure P/l) regarding tewyvery of amount from the gratuity and other dues ofthe petitioner on account ofexcess payment, is hereby quashed. The petitioner is eatitled to fall pensionai}' benefits/gratuity amount without any deduction. However, it is open to the respondents to lake recourse to Rule 65 of the Riiles, 1976, if so advised, in accordance with law, following basic principles ofnatural justice. TSfo order asto costs. Sd/- Satish K. Agnihotri Judge Sahu @i- ^F-1^—E'-"3BS5Eag