\g Hemraj Ladeshwar, ged 53 years, son ~ ‘ of Shri Guharam Ladeshwar, at present Upper Division Teacher, Biock Chhuriya. Distt. jnandgaon (CG). 1) Sate Govemment of Chhattiay, :hrough tha Secratary, Schoo Education Deparkment Ministry, .K.S. Bhavan. Raipur (CG). 2) Diskiot Education Officer jnandaon (CG). 3) Biock Education Officer, Chhuriya. (Writ Peiition under Ariicie 226 of the Constitution of india.) Single Bench : Hon’bie M. Satish . Agnihotri, J. r K Present : Shri Ajay Shrivastava, oounsei for the petitioner. Shri PK. Bhadur‘i Pane Lawyerfor the State. oRAL oRoER e h (Passd on tis 10“ day or September, 2008i By this pention, the petitier chaiienged the inaction on the part of the respondent authorities by which they reduced the pay scaie of the petitioner to Rs.6650l- from Rs.6800/—, which is evident from the pay siips for the months June & Juiy, 2007. 2) Learned counsel appearing for the petitione submits that the petitioner was not given any opportnity to explain about the payment made to the petitioner. Thus, the same is vitiated for want of compiiance of the priciples of natural justice and fair play in-action. Learned counsel furthe submits hat there is no fault on the part of the petitioner and the amount is paid to him in accordance with the pay scaies, revised and fixed by the respondents from time to time. No reason has been assigned asto on which count the excess pay scale, if any, was made. The respondents cannot reduce the pay scale without following the principles of natuiai justice. 3) Learned counsei appearing for the respondents/State submits that it is true that no show cause notice was given to the petidoner. The petitioner was not called upon to submit his explanation for making the alleged excess payment/pay-scaie. \ ' \\ a p.- HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH: EILASPUR Writ Petition LS) No. 5018 of 2008 Petitioner a Ra Versus Respondents sgh l D , Rag , ! on r u n r t \ \ W 4) The respondent authorities have not followed the principies of naturai justice and the impugned action has been taken without affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, The practice of passing order involving civii consequences, without show cause notice or without affording an opportunity, is condemned. Thus, this action of the respondents is bad on account of the fact that the petitioner was not afforded any opportunity of hearing before the impugned action was taken, also. 5) The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Sahib Ram Vs. State of Haryana and others" in para 5 has held as under: “5. However, tt is not on account of any misrepresentation made by the appettant that the beneft of higher pay scaie was given to him but by wrong construction made by the Pnncmal for which the appellant cannot be held to be at fautt Under me crrcumstances the amount paid t.” date may not be recovered from the appeilant " 6) The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of P. Tuisidas and others v. Government of A.P, and othersz, observed that the benefit accrued earlier by way of grant of higher pay or revised pay, cannot be taken away as the same is violative of Article 14 and 16 of the Constitution of india being arbitrary; unreasonabie and expropriatory. 7) This Court, in the case of Vidyadhar Tiwari Vs. State of Chhattisgarh & othersa has held that for the excess paymeat, if any, made to the petitioner, he was not at fault and the amount received by him might have been used by adjusting himself accordingiy treating the same as his salary. At this stage, directing recovery of the alleged excess amount from the pensionary benefits of the petitioner will not be just and proper. 8) In view of the reasons mentioned hereinabove, this petition is allowed. The respondents are directed to fix the pay scale of the petitioner, in accordance with the rutes. The petitioner is entitled to fuli benehts. The amount. if any, deducted would carry interest at the rate of 6% per annum. However, it is open to the respondents to take any step, if so advised, in accordance with law foiiowing basic principles of naturai justice. /#~ ‘ Sd/- Satish K Agmhm“ ‘ Judge 1 1995 Supp (1) soc 2o MR 2003 so 43 3 2006 (1) MPHT 105 (CG)