Bhuneshwar Prasad Namdeo vs State Govt. of Chhattisgarh and The Joint Director

Satish K. Agnihotri, J.—With the consent of the parties, the matter is heard finally.

By this petition, the petitioner has prayed for a suitable writ or direction to quash the order dated 10.12.2004 (Annexure P/1) passed by the respondent No. 2 directing for recovery of a sum of Rs. 65,415/- from the retiral dues of the petitioner, because this amount was wrongly paid to the petitioner owing to incorrect fixation of salary.

Shri Verma, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the issue asto whether recovery of excess payment can be made without following principles of natural justice is no longer res integra, the same has been settled by the Supreme Court in the matter of Sahib Ram v. State of Haryana and Ors. and further followed by this Court in the matter of Vidyadhar Tiwari v. The State of Chhattisgarh and Ors and Vidya Shankar Tiwari v. State of M.P. (Now State of Chhattisgarh) and Ors. In the instant case, the impugned order has been passed without affording any opportunity of hearing to the petitioner.

Shri Sao, learned Government Advocate does not controvert the allegation that no opportunity of hearing was afforded before the impugned orders were passed. However, he relies on Rule 65 of the Chhattisgarh Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1976 (for short the Rules, 1976'') for the purpose of recovery and adjustment of Government dues.

The contention of the petitioner that even for exercising power under Rule 65 of the Rules, 1976, basic principles of natural justice and fair play in action are required to be followed. In the present case, the State/authorities have not afforded any opportunity of hearing to the petitioner to put forward his case asto why the deduction from the gratuity amount being excess amount cannot be made. The contention of the learned Counsel for the petitioner merits acceptance.

This Court, in the case of Vidyadhar Tiwari (supra), has held that the excess payment, if any, made to the petitioner, he was not at fault and the amount received by him might have been used by adjusting himself accordingly treating the same as his salary. At this stage, directing recovery of the alleged excess amount from the pensionary benefits/gratuity amount of the petitioners will not be just and proper.

In view of the foregoing, this petition is allowed in the terms of the order passed in the case of Vidyadhar Tiwari (supra) i.e. the impugned order dated 10.12.2004 (Annexure P/1) regarding recovery of Rs. 65,415/- from the retiral dues of the petitioner is hereby quashed. The petitioner is entitled to full pensionary benefits/gratuity amount without any deduction. However, it is open to the respondents to take recourse to Rule 65 of the Rules, 1976, if so advised, in accordance with law, after following basic principles of natural justice. No order asto costs.