s" (^? \ZJ~S^J IN THE HIGH eOURT OF JUDICATURE OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR W.P.(S.)NO. .36 2 CT 72009 PETITIONER: ^^> Padum LalPatel f^- Retired Compounder S/o Shri Jagjyoti Lal Patel, Aged about 62 years, R/o Vmage 85 Post Libra, Block Tamnar, District Raigarh (C.G.) €^€. '^-"' RESPONDENTS VERSUS 1. 2. 3. State of Chhattisgarh: Through The Secretary, F'ublic Health and Family Welfare Department, D.K.S. Bhawan, Raipur (C.G.) The. Joint Du-ector Treasury Accountant and Pension Bilaspur, District Bilaspur (C.G.) The Chief Medical Officer Raigarh, District Raigarh (C.G.) WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OP THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA FOR ISSUANCE OF WRIT IN NATHKE OF MANDAMUS CERTIQRARY OR ANY. OTHER WRIT QP LIKE NATURE ETC. The petitioner most humbly and respectfully begs to submit as under : 1) PARTICULARS OFTHEPETmONER As stated in cause tifle above. <^.9 HIGH COURT OF CHHAmSGAKHAT BILASPUR WRTT PETmONCS) No. 3625 of2009 PETmONER RESPONT)ENTS Padum Lal Patel. VERSUS State ofChhattisgarh & Others. WKrTPETmONUNDERARTICLE2260ETHE CONSTTTUTION OF INDIA. SB: Hon'UeShri Satish K. Asnihotri.J. Present: Sfari D.R.Patel, Advocate for the petitioner. Smt. Smita Ghai, Panel Lawyer forthe State/respondents. ith 3. ORDERfORAL) (Passedon 14th dayof September, 2009) Heard counsel forthe parties. By this petition, the petitioner impugns the order dated 04 January, 2008 (Armexure P/2) passed by the respondent No. 2, whereby a sum ofRs. 15,496/- •has been deducted holding it to be excess payment made to the petitiQner, from his retiral dues. Shri Patel, leamed coiinsel appearing fpr the petitioner submits that the issue asto whether rec&very of exeess paymeat ean be made without following principles ofnatural justice is no longer res integra, the same; has been settled by the Supreme Court in the matter of Sahib Ram v. State ofHarysna and others^, and further followed by this Court in the matter ofVidyadhar Tiwari v. The State ofChhaltisgarh & Others^ and Wya Shankar Tiwart v. State cfM.P. (Noiw State of Chhattisgarh} and other^. In the instant case, the impugned order has been passed without aflfording any opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. Smt. Ghai, leamed Panel Lawyer-does not eonfrovert the allegation that no opportunity ofhearing was afforded before the impugued orders were passed. However, she relies on Rule 65 ofthe Chhattisgarh Civil Services (Pension) 11995Supp(l)SCC20 2 2006 (1) KGPHT 105 (CG) 3 2006 (2) MPHT 31.(CG) ^ 4. Rules, 1976 (for short Ifae Rules, 1976') for fhe purpose of recovery and adjustnient ofGovemment dues. Thecontention oflhe petitioner that even for exercising powerunder Rule 65 ofthe Rules, 1976, basic principles ofiiaturaljustice andfair play in action are required to be followed. In the present eass, the State/authorities have not afforded any opportunity ofhearing to the petitioaer to put forward his case asto why the deduction from the grafaiity amount being excess amount cannot be made. The contention of the leamed counsel for the petitioiier merits acceptance. This Court in tfae case of VictyacSiar Tiwari (supra), has held that the excess payment, if any, made to the petitioner, he was not at faultand the amount received by him might have been used by adjusting himself aecordingly treating fhe same as his salary.At this stage, directing recoveiy ofthe alleged exeess amount from the pensionary benefits/g-atuity amoimt ofthepetitioner will notbejust and proper. In view of the foregoing and as admitted by leamed counsel appearing for the parties,thispetitionisallowedinlheterms6ftheorderpassedintheease of Vidyadhar T'i'wan' (wpra) i.e. Ifae unpugued order dated 04 January, 2008 (Annexure P/2) deductinga sum of Rs. 15,496/- fi-bm the retiral dues ofthe petitioner is hereby quashed. The petitioner is entitled to &11 pensionary benefrts/g-atuity amoimt without any deduction. Iffhe said amount is ah-eady deducted, the same shall bepayableto the petitioner with simple interest @ 6% per ammm from the date it became due till fhe payment is made. However, it is open to the respondents to take recourse to Rule 65 oflfae Rules, 1976, ifso advised, in accordance wifh law, after foUowing basic principles of natural justice. No order asto costs. Sd/- Satish K. Agnihotri Judge Amit i"!:^«*l