Petitioner HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH: BILASPUR Writ Petition (Sl No. 4348 of 2008 Sadanand Nishad, S/o Vidyadhar Nishad, aged about 69 yeare, R/o vitiage & post Tetla, Biock Pusour, Distt.Raigarh (CG). Respondents Versys 1) State of Chhattisgarh through the Secretary, School Education Department, D.K.S. Bhawan, f^ipur, District Raipur (CG). 2) The Joint Director, Treasury Accountant and Pension, Bitaspur, District Biiaspur (CG). 3) District Education Officer, Raigarh, District Raigarh (CG). 4) The Principal, Govt. High School, Kodpali, Block Pusour, Distt. Raigarh (CG). (Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constifartion of India.) Singte Bench : Hon'ble Mr. Satish K. Agnihotri, J. Present: Shri Sanjay Patel, counsel for the petitioner. Smt. Smita Ghai, Panel Lawyer for tt»eState. ORAL ORDER (Passed on 8th day of August, 2008) The petitionerwas appointed as an Assistant Teacher on 23-7-1959 in the respondents department. The petitioner retired from services on attaining the age of superannuation on31-8-2001. Mer his retirement, the petitioner receh/ed a letter dated 22-11-2001 (Annexure P/1) directing recovery of a sum of Rs.49,713/- on account.of excess payment made to the petitioner. "~ 2) Leamed counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was not given any opportunityto explain hiscase. Thus, this order is vitiated for want of compliance of the principles of nateiral justice and Tair play in-action. Learned counsel further submjtethat Uiere isnofaulton the part of the petitioner and the amount is paid to him in accordance with the pay scales, revised and flxed by the respondents from time to time. The respondents cannot recover the amount, aiready paid 1-11, 'L.- l^ ^ to the petitioner after his retirement, that too without following the principles of naturat iustice. 3) Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the respondents/State submits that it is true that no show cause noUce was given to tte petitioner. The communications made between the officers was endorsed to the petitioner. The petitioner was notcalled upon to submit his explanation for payment of alleged excess payment and recovery th^eafter. 4) The respondent authorities have not Tollowed the prlnciptes of natural justice and the impugned action has been taken without affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. The practice of passingorder invotving civil consequences without show cause notice or wittiout affording an opportunity, is condemned. Thus, this action of deducting Rs.49,713/- Trom retiral dues is bad on account of the fact that the petitioner was not afforded any opportunity of hearing before the impugned actton was taken, atso. 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, 'rt is not on account of any misrepresentation made by the appellant that the benefit of higher pay scale was given te him but by wrong construction made by the Principal for which the appellant cannot be held to be at fault. Under the cireumstances, the amount paid ti!! date may not be recovered from the appellant." 6) The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of P. Tulsidas and others v. Government of A.P. and others2, observed that the benefrt accrued earlier by way of grant of higher pay or revised pay, cannot be teken away as the same is viotative of Article 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India being arbifrary, unreasonabte and expropriatory. 7) This Court, in the-^case of Vidyadhar Tiwari Vs. State of Chhattisgarh & ottiers has held that for the excess payment, if any, made to tH'e petitioner, he was notat fault and the amount received by him might have been used by adjusUng himself accordtngly treating the same as his satary. At ttiis stage, directing recovery of the atleged excess amount from the pensionary benefits ofthe petitionerwill not bejustand proper. 11995 Supp (1) SCC 20 2AtR2Q03SC-43 32006(T)MRHT105(CG) »8JHfl~ ^- y 8) In view of the reasons menttoned hereinabove, this petition is allowed. The impugned tetter dated 22-11-2001 (Annexure P/1) directing recovery a sum of Rs.49,713/- on account of excess payment made to the petitioner, is hereby quashed. The petitioner is 'entitled to fult pensionary benefits/gratuity amount without any deduction. if the amount has been recovered, the petitioner is entitled to the said amourt with interest at the rate of 6% per annum. However, it is open tothe reSpondents to take recourse to Rule 65 of the Chhattisgarh Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1976. ifso advised, in accordance with law following basic principles of naturat justice. No order asto costs. Go'kWi ..: sd/- sa(lsAK.Agnifaotri •a J Stfl !iEIllfl •iji^a Sl