Allowed

Bharat Lal Sao v. State of Chhattisgarh and Others

Chhattisgarh HC4 Sept 2008WPS/3817/2008

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Chhattisgarh quashed an order directing recovery of excess payment from a retired Patwari’s pension, holding that the department violated principles of natural justice by failing to issue a show-cause notice or provide an opportunity of hearing.

What did the court decide?

The impugned letter directing recovery of Rs. 42,435/- on account of excess payment is quashed. The petitioner is entitled to full pensionary benefits/gratuity amount without any deduction.

Bharat Lal Sao Vs State of Chhattisgarh… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Chhattisgarh HC (2008)

¶1

^
®s"
^'a'•s-i33!5
-:-' -". i" (G>

¶2

HIGH COCRT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

¶3

WRIT PETmON (S) No. 3817 of 2008

¶4

PETmONER Bharat Lal Sao age about 60 years (Retired Patwari) S/o Shri Sukhrain Sahu R/o ViHage Bharrigaon- Post Fagundah Tahsil^- Ourur, Distt.-Ditrg(C.G.)

¶5

VER8US

¶6

RESPONDENTS

¶7

State Govt. of Chhattisgarii Throu^i Seci-etary, Reveiiue Dq)artinent, D.K.S. Bhawan, Raipur (€.Q.)

¶8

The Divisional Jomt .Directw f&easurx Penssion & Accounts) Raipur Division, Raipur(C.G.)

¶9

WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE226 Of THE CONSTminON OF INDIA

¶10

SB: Hon'ble Shri Sattsh K. AanBiotei, J.

¶11

Present: Shri Ajay Shrivastava, Advocate fw the petitioner. Shri M.P.S.Bhatia, Depuly Govemineat Advosate forthe State.

¶12

ORALORDJER -:i :: ::: -; :'- •.-.—*-

¶13

(Passed on 04th day of Septeiaber, 2008)

¶14

With the consent ofthe parties, the matta- is taicen up for hMrine finally.

¶15

The petitioner woridng as Patwari at Tahsil &m& DistriBt^Durg, ratired from services on attaming the age of superaimuation on 30.04.2QVS. After his retirement tfae petitioner received a letter dated 24.04.2008 (Annexure P/I) directing recovery a sum ofRs.42,435/- on accouat ofexcess payment made to the petitioner.

¶16

Leamed counsel appearing for the petitioaer submits that the petitianer was not given any o{yQrtumty to e3ylain the payment made to the petitioner. Thus, this order is vitiated for want of compliance of ti»e principles of natural justice and fair play in-action. Learaed counsel fiirther submfts that there is no fault on the part ofthe petitioner and the amount is paid to him in accordance with Ihe pay scales, revised and fixed by the respondents from time to time. Tbe respondents camiot recover the amount, ah-ea^

¶17

¶18

-2-

¶19

paid to the petitioner after his retirCTnent, tiiat too wfthout followine Ihe principles ofnaturaljustice.

¶20

Per eontra, leamed counsel appearmg for the respondente/State subtnits that it is true that no show cause notice was given to the petitioner. The communications made between the offieers was endorsed to 1fae petitioaer. The petitioner was not ealled upon to submit his explanation for paymeirt ®f alteged excess payment and recovery thereafter

¶21

The respondent-au&orities have not followed the {Mincipl^ of natural justice and the impugied action has been taken without rffording an opportumty of hearing tp the petitioner. The jTactice of passing arder involving civil eonsequences without show caase notice or wtthout affording an opportunity, is condemned. Thus, this adion ofdedurting Rs. 42.435/- fi-om retiral dues is bad on accwiiit oflhe fact Ifaat Ihe petitioaer was not afibrded any oiyortunity of hearmg before the impugned actian was taken, also. •' •

¶22

Tlie Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case ofSahib Ram Vs. State ofHaryana

¶23

and other^ in para 5 has held as under:

¶24

i. "5. However, it is not oa account of any

¶25

misrepresentatioa made by the appellamt tiiat the benefit ofhi^ier pay scale was given to him but by wrong coostruction ina<ie by the Princyal for wfaieh the appellant cannot be teld to be at &ult Under the cu-cumstances, the amount paid till date may not be recovered from Ifae appellant."

¶26

The Hon'ble Supreme Court ia Ihe case vf P. Tuisidas wid Gthers v.

¶27

Govemment ofAP. and others *, obswved that the benefit aceraed earlier by way of grant of hi^ier pay or revised pay, camot be taken

¶28

'1995Supp(l)SCC20 2AIR2003SC43

¶29

-3..,

¶30

awav as the same is violative ofArti®le14 and 16 (rfthe Oan^itutiai of India being arbitrary, unreasot»bteand eiqa-opriatory.

¶31

This Court, in flie case of yidhwSiar Tiwari Vs. State afCkhMtisgarh & oiker/ has held tiiat for Ifae excess payment, if any, raade to the petitioner, he was not at fault and the amowtt receivai by han nu^tf have been used by adjusting himself accoKfagly tTeating flis same as his salary. At this stage, directing recovery of 1he aBeged excess amoudt fiwm the pensionary benefits ofthe petffioner wifi not be just and proper.

¶32

In view ofthe reasons aentioned hereinabove, this patition is allowed. The impugned tetter dated 24.04.2008 (Annexure P/l) du-ecting recovery a sum ofRs. 42A35/- on aceount of excess paynent inade to the petitioner, is hereby quashed. The petitioner is eiititled to fiiU pensionary^{benefits/gratuityamountwithoutanyAduction.} If the amount has been recovered, the petitioner is artitled to tte said Mnount with interest at Ihe rate of 6% per amium. However, it is open to the respondents to take recourse to Rule 65 of the Chhattisgarh Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1976, ifso advised, in aecordance with law following basic principtes ofnaturaljustiee. No order asto costs.

¶33

s^^s'

¶34

2006 (1)MPdT 105 (CC)

Bharat Lal Sao v. State of Chhattisgarh and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Bharat Lal Sao v. State of Chhattisgarh and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Khorbahra and Ors. Vs Ramkunwar and Anr.

Smt. Anjulata Bareth Vs State of Chhattisgarh and Others

Bsp Karm.Sah.Upbh.Bhan.Mary,Kh.andORS Vs State of Chhattisgarh and Ors.

Kailash Dubey Vs Secl and Another

Ram Nath Singh Vs Jagannath Singh and Other

M.L. Sharma Vs State of Chhattisgarh and Others