g3 G'H (IQIW'RT i)? CiiiiATi‘iSGAw AT BILAS?UR WRH‘ ‘PETI’i‘XON {S) No, 45364 $2008 ?E'1‘1‘R‘IONER : Smt. Rana ‘iEarinder Kaur Bel aged 62 years, Wife Gf Shi‘i Syramp Siiagh Ba}, Retired Lectm'er, Governmem: Higher Secondary Sdmoi Emi, Distrim Durg (C.G.) RESFONDENTS : 1. $tate Govemmem' of Chhatiisgarh 'i‘hreugi1 the Secretary, Tribal Devebpmem Dispartmem DKS Bhavan, Raipur (CG) Joént Director, Kagh Lekka, Peiigim, Raigmr Division., Raivur, ?1'esen§; VERSUS PriucipaE, (3mm Boys Madgi E’Iighar Secondary $611001, Balod, District Burg {CUJ f f‘\ J[\ l)l. WRIT EJETYHON UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF YBL CON S'HTU‘I‘EON U“ {NDEA Sis': Hon’bka $hri Samka K Agnihoiri J. Sim $omkam Verma, Advocaie far tim petitimzer. Ms Sum? Jaém Pémel Lawvez" £01“ the Siam/resptmdemm }. am! 3. GRAL URI§ER {Fassed on 26:3 day of Augngt, 20mg) By this petitien‘ the yetitioner impugns the order dated 31.(3..2G.’)8 issuad by fhe mspondem No. 2 {Amaexare W1} for recowsry ofa sum of Rs. 1114,0787— IFmm the retirai dues towards excess payment mada b3 this petitioner on account ofwrong fixation ef Salary ofthe peii‘tioner. Bewg aggrieveei? the petitimer has iiieti this pet3t§0xa praying ihat the impugned (mier daied 31.352003 {Amexm‘e 13/1) deciucti‘eg excess amount fmm the pensionary beneme of ihe petitiotier without aifbrding an oppmi’um‘w of hearing t9 gmt :{bmard eaae 0f the peii‘iiomr, is "éikegai, aybiwarv and umeasomhie. Leameé coun‘se} appearing for me petiiioner Submitg that ihe issue 3.310 Whether receveiy of excess paymen? Lan be made without iiiiiewmg yrmciyaes ef mturai justice is n0 Fmger res integra; the same has been h} ‘13» Q9 5etti¢d by the Supmme Court in the matter of Sahib Ram VY. State of Hafyamx arid Qfhers d f1 . ‘3 r f EQWAd by tms Lean m the matter of I/Ea‘yczdl‘iar Tiww: Vs. Tim Siam QfCkh0mv2'r’rl1 & Oikem? Learned counsei for the respamiexafS/State raiies 0n Ruia 65 of the C§ha1iisgarh Civil Services (Pension) Ru'ies, 1976 (for short, ‘the Rules; 1976’) ibr tha purpose ofrecovery and adJéuStmem 9f Government dues. Ruie 65 ofihe Ruies, 1976 wads as unaier: “Rule 65 - Receveiy and adjus$mem of Gavemmem Clues:- ti 1) L ehall be t§1e ahiiy uf evei'y retiring {Sevemmieiai seivrmi £0 clear ai1 Gavemmem dues befm‘e the date oi’i‘iis retirement. (2} Where a retiring Gevex‘nmem servani does net dear the Gevem‘maem duee am? gush dues ale aeceziamebiek {a) an equivabm caeh depouit may be taken ii‘em him; or \b) 0 tm me Jamie wame m him, hie smmmee er Legal heir, an amoum equai to {hat reeeverabie on acceum ofascertainahie Govemmem éaes shall be deducted. Expiaaaiiom—l. The expression ‘ascex‘x‘ainabie Government eues’ ieemdes beEance 9f eene building a}? cmaveyame advance mew“ 0f rem ami 0331A? chargee peziaieina‘ i“ meetqmmvh m UUVeh‘jlmih Aceummudluuii vvei-gd‘ym in A311 new ansi dimwcmr'ee and arreare 0i mmme tax deeumme (xi Umhue mmkX the Amunie .ma‘x [xvi 1961” Hae contentmn of me peimoner {mi evea jor exeremng A wer under Rule 65 of the Ruiee. 1E’7é, bagie mincmies 0i nature? iustice wd fad? :piay im acijon are trequired to he foiiowed. 1’33 ‘ihe wesent case. the Smie/amhoriiies have not aigibxded any emaermniiy 9f hearing ”t0 the peetiener $0 put. iiwWam his caee 2mm Whv the eeduction 13mm the gramiiy amoum hemg exceSs ameum cannot be made. The centen‘iian of the i§eamed counsei fer the petitioner merits aeeepi‘ance. This Court. in the ease of Vidyadhar Tiwari (supra), has held the”: the exeeSs paymem, if any, made to the jeetiiimaer, he was not ai ‘f‘auEt end ihe amount reeeivec'i by him might have been usecl by adjusting mseH §‘- 0% (1) WHT 10S (0") @ accordingiy treating ihe same as his, s‘giaxy. A? th§s swge: direciimg recaveyy 0f tha:‘ aEeged excess amount from the pen$£n>nary %3eHefi’ts/yra1i1it a Y amount Qi‘the netiiiéner K will mi he J ‘ust and Promr. A in View ef {he ibregeing, this pstitim is aEmveci in the Ems 0f Q16 ordcar pzmsed in we case of Vidyacihar ’E‘iwari ('supm) ta. the impugna& ofder/Eétmr daiaci 31,052008 (Aimexure P/l) regarding recovery of amount from i‘he gratuity anti othar duss ofth$ ps$i£imer ‘on accouni‘ of excess paymeni, is hereby quashed The petiiioraer ég enutlw to mi} gaensionayy §)emeiits/gramity amoum wéthout any deduciim, Hmwevm‘, it is open, 10 {Em re$p0miéms i0 iake receuma m Ruka 65 of ihe Rules, 1976, %f sc wviseé, in accardance WM: law, afier ibiiowing’ basic prjmimes ofnamrai jugtice. NO order as‘u} costs“ ’- ‘ 'Sd/w 5 a Sapsh KAgm‘iwtri \ Judge Amit