iGH COURT OF CHHftTTlSGARH AT BILASF WRiT PETITiON (S) No. 5607 of 2008 PET!TIONER : Krishnadhar Diwan s/o Diwarika Diwan, Aged about 63 years, Head Master, Govt. Higher SecondarySchooi, SIdaha, District BilaspUr (C.G.) VERSUS RESPONDENTS : 1. State of Chhattisgarh Through: The Secretary, Education Department, D.K5. Bhawan, Raipur (C.G.) ^ 2. Joint Director Treasuiy, Account & Pension Bilaspur Division, District Biiaspur (C.G.) 3. District Education Officer, Biiaspur, District !ilaspur(C,G.) 4. Block Education Officer, Patharia, Districf: Silaspur(C.G.) 5. Principai, Govemment Higher Secondaiy Schoo!, Siidaha, Dtstrict Bilaspur (C.G.) WRST PETiTiON UNDERARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTiTUTiON OF iNDIA SB: Hon'bleShri Satish K.Agnihotri. J. Kunai Das, Advocate forthe Panak) Shrivasta\@, Panel onl7thdayof Sy this petition, the petitioner has prayed for a suitabie writ or direction to quash the order dated 03.0i.2005 (Annexure P/2) passed by the respondent No. 2 directing for recovery of a sum of ?s. l,i5,760/- from the retirai dues of the petitioner, because this amount was wrongly paid to the petitioner owing to incorrect fixation of salary. Shri Das, leamed counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the Issue asto whether recoveiy of excess paynent can be made without following principles of natural justice is no longer rss 'integra, the same has been settled by the Supreme Court in the matter of Sahi'i) Ram v. Stateof Haryana and otherst, and further foltowed bythis Gourt in the matterof Vidyadhar Tswar! v.The State ofChhaWsgarh & Others2 and Vfdya Shankar Tiwar! v. StateofM.P. CNOW Stste of Chhattisgarh) and otters3. !n the instant case impugned order has been passed without affording any of hearing to the petitioner. i 1995 Supp (1) SCC 20 , 2 200S (1) MPHTA05 (CG) »2006(2)MPHT3i(CG) the ,ia ,tl-n;t 2 3. Shri Shrsvastava, iearned Panel Lawyer does not controvert the aliegation that noopportunity of hearing was afforded before the impugned orderswere passed. However, he reiies on Rule 65 of the Chhatti'sgarh Civil Servlces (Pension) Ru!es, 1976 (for short 'the Eules, 1976') for the purpose of recovery and adjustmi The contention of the petitioner that si?en for exercising under Ru!e65 ofthe Rules, 1976, basic principte of natural and Tair play in action are required to be Toilowed. tn the present case, the State/authoriti^ have not afforded any opportunlh' of hearing to the petitioner to put forward his case asto why deduction from the gratuity amoynt being excess amount be made. The contention of ths learned counsel Tor the petitioner 5. Thls Court, In the caseof Vidyadhar Tiwart (supra), has held that the and the amount received by him migit have been used by adjustinj himself accordingly treating the same as his salaiy. At this stage, directing recovery of the alleged excess amount from the pensionaiy benefits/ gratuity amount of the petitioners wiil not be ned order dated 03.01. of Rs. i,15,760/- from 6. In view of the foregoing, this petition is aliowed in the terms of ths Tiwari (supra) i.e. the (Annexurs P/2) rsgarding retira! dues of the petitioner is is entitled to fuli pensionary beneflts/gratuity amount without any deduction. However, it is open to take recourse to Rule 65 ofthe Rules, 1976, In accordance with iaw, after foltowing basic natural justice. No Sd/- , ,„ s^^^°^ Judge I 11-1 :!