HIGH COURT OF CHHATFISGARH z BILASPUR Writ Petition N0. 2195 of 2006 KRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226/227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA (SB: Hon’ble Shri'San'sh K. Agnihotri J.) Shri S. K. Tiwaii, Advocate for the petitioner. Shn' Arvind Dubey, Panel Lawyer for the State] respondents. O R A L O R D E R (Passed on this 8m Day ofApril, 2009) With the consent of learned counsel appearing for the parties, the matter is heard nnally. r Learned counsei appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner, While working as Senior Co—operative Inspector, retired from service on attaining the age of superannuation. on 31.8.2003. After his retirement, by order dated 3.12.2003 (Annexure P] 2) a sum of Rs. 29,564I- has been directed to be recovered from the retirai dues of the petitioner on account of excess payment made to the petitioner. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was not given any opportunity to explain about the payment made to the petitioner. Thus, this order is vitiated for want of compliance of the principles of natural justice and fair play in action. Learned counsel further submits that there is no fault on the part of the petitioner and the amount is paid to him in accordance with the pay scales, revised and fixed by the respondents from time to time. No reason has been assigned asto Petitioner Purshottam Prasad Dwivedi, S/o Late Shri Awadh Bihari Dwivedi, aged about 63 years, R/o Kotara Road, Behind Balram Garagc, Raigarh, Tahsil & Distict Raigarh (C.G.) Versus Respondents 1. State of Chhattisgarh, Through Secretaiy, Co~operative Department, D.K.S. Bhawan, Raipur(C.G.) 2. The Joint Director, Accounts Treasury and Pension, Bilaspur (C.G.) 3. The Assistant Registrar, (lo—operative Societies, Raigarh (C.G.) on which count the excess payment, 11 any, was made. The respondents cannot recover the amount, already paid to the petiu'oner after his retirement, that too Without following the pn'ncipies ofnatural justice. cause notice was given to the petitioner. The petitioner was not called upon to submit his explanation for payment of alleged excess payment and recovery thereafter. 5. The respondent-authorities have not followed the principles of condemned. Thus, this action of deducting Rs. 29,564/- from‘ retrial dues is bad on account of the fact that the petitioner was action not aiforded was taken. any opportunityof healing before the impugned amount already paid to them. 7. The Hon’ble Supreme Cou1t in the matter of Sahib Ram Vs. state of Haryana and others? , in para ‘5 held, as under: “S. However, it is not on account of any 8. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of P. Tulsidas and others Vs'. Government of A.P. and other-53 , observed that the .mnm ‘{f1994) 2 s c 521} 2{ 1995 Supp 11) sec 20} 3{A.1.R. 2003 so 43} ?& benefit accrued earh'er by way of grant of higher pay or revised pay, cannot be takcn away as the same is Violative of Article 14 and 16 of the Constitution of Inc‘iia being arbitrary, unreasonable and expropriatory. This Couxt in the matter of Vidhyadhar Tiwari Vs. State of Chhattisgarh & others‘h held that for the excess payment it‘any, made to the petitioner, he was not at fault and the amount received by him might have been used by adjusting himself accordingly ueating the same as his salary. At this stage, directing recovery of the alleged excess amount from the pensionaxy benefits oft'he petitioner will not be just and proper. 10. In View of the forgoing, the petition is allowed. The impugned order dated 3.12.2003 (Annexure P/ 2) in regard to the recovery of Rs. 29,564] ~, on account of excess payment made to the petitioner, is hereby quashed. The petitioner is entitled to full pensionary beneiits/gratuity amount Without any deduction. if the amount has already been recovered, the petitioner is entitled to the said amount with interest at the rate of 6% per annum. . However, it is open to the respondents] State to take recourse to Rule 65 of the Chhattisgarh Civil Services (pension) Rules, 1976, if so advised, in accordance with law, foliowing the basic principles of natural justice. No order asto costs. Sd/- smash K. 'Aghihotri Judge 4 {2006 (1) M.P.H.T. 105 (C.G.)}