ORDER : 1. The petitioner has assailed the order of recovery of Rs. 1,52,448/- passed by the respondent No. 4 against him on 29.06.2018 after his retirement. 2. Facts of the case, in brief, are that the petitioner retired from the post of Assistant Engineer in the Water Resources Construction Division, Kasdol on 30.06.2017 after attaining the age of superannuation. It has been stated that before superannuation of the petitioner, no demand certificate was issued on 24.06.2015, 23.09,2016, 02.11.2016, 20.01.2016, 29.04.2017 and 07.06.2017 (Annexure P/2 to P/8). All of a sudden, recovery letter dated 13.09.2017 of Rs. 2,00,075/- has been issued to the petitioner. The petitioner has challenged the said recovery by filing WP (S) No. 5502 of 2018 wherein this Court vide order dated 08.02.2018 had granted liberty to the petitioner to make representation before the competent authority for redressal of his grievances within a period of four weeks the in light of the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Punjab and Others vs. Rafiq Masih (White Washer), (2015) 4 SCC 334 . In pursuance of direction given by this Court to the petitioner has submitted the representation to the respondents, thereafter vide memo dated 20.08.2018, the petitioner has been informed by respondent No. 4 that as per the Circular No. 44/2018 issued by Finance Department Govt. of Chhattisgarh, there is excess payment made to the petitioner at the time of pay fixation. The memo is also annexed with the details of excess payment which has been paid to the petitioner which comes to Rs. 93,000/- in excess. 3. The record would further demonstrate that the petitioner has filed another WP (S) No. 1200 of 2018 as the retiral dues of the petitioner was not paid. This Court vide its order dated 14.03.2018 has disposed of the petition and directed the State to pay the retiral dues to the petitioner which was not paid, therefore, he has filed contempt case No. 488 of 2018. During pendency of the contempt petition, retiral dues has been paid but a sum of Rs. 1,52,448/- has been withheld towards recovery as evident from Annexure P/1 dated 26.06.2018. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that after retirement issuance of recovery order by the respondents is bad in law. During pendency of the contempt petition, retiral dues has been paid but a sum of Rs. 1,52,448/- has been withheld towards recovery as evident from Annexure P/1 dated 26.06.2018. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that after retirement issuance of recovery order by the respondents is bad in law. He would further submit that the petitioner made family planning as per scheme of the Government and there is provision to grant one increment to the employee who has undertaken family planning operation. He would further submit that before retirement no order of recovery was issued to the petitioner as such recovery after retirement is against the judgment of Supreme Court in the case of State of Punjab and Others vs. Rafiq Masih (White Washer), (2015) 4 SCC 334 . Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that recovery of excess payment cannot be made without giving any opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, therefore, recovery order may be quashed. 5. The State has filed their return wherein they have stated that petitioner was wrongly paid the salary from 1.1.96 to 1.7.2016 and therefore, the recovery order has been passed. The State to justify their action has referred to the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Chandi Prasad Uniyal and Others vs. State of Uttrakhand and Others, 2012 (8) SCC 417 and would refer to paragraph 13, 14, and 15 which reads as under: 13. We are not convinced that this Court in various judgments referred to herein before has laid down any proposition of law that only if the State or its officials establish that there was misrepresentation or fraud on the part of the recipients of the excess pay, then only the amount paid could be recovered. On the other hand, most of the cases referred to hereinbefore turned on the peculiar facts and circumstances of those cases either because the recipients had retired or were on the verge of retirement or were occupying lower posts in the administrative hierarchy. 14. We are concerned with the excess payment of public money which is often described as “tax payers” and money” which belongs neither to the officers who have effected overpayment nor to the recipients. We fail to see why the concept of fraud or misrepresentation is being brought in such situations. 14. We are concerned with the excess payment of public money which is often described as “tax payers” and money” which belongs neither to the officers who have effected overpayment nor to the recipients. We fail to see why the concept of fraud or misrepresentation is being brought in such situations. The question to be asked is whether excess money has been paid or not, may be due to a bona fide mistake. Possibly, effecting excess payment of public money by the government officers may be due to various reasons like negligence, carelessness, collusion, favoritism, etc. because money in such situation does not belong to the payer or the payee. Situations may also arise where both the payer and the payee are at fault, then the mistake is mutual. Payments are being effected in many situations without any authority of law and payments have been received by the recipients also without any authority of law. Any amount paid/received without the authority of law can always be recovered barring few exceptions of extreme hardships but not as a matter of right, in such situations law implies an obligation on the payee to repay the money or otherwise it would amount to unjust enrichment. 15. We are, therefore, of the considered view that except few instances pointed out in Syed Abudi Qadir Case (2009) 3 SCC 475 and Col. B.J. Akkara Case (2006) 11 SCC 709 , the excess payment made due to wrong/irregular pay fixation can always be recovered. 6. Learned State counsel would submit that wrong fixation has been done while implementing 6th and 7th Pay Commission in respect of petitioner from 01.12.2001 till 2017, therefore, recovery be made from the petitioner towards wrong pay fixation. He would further submit that Rule 65 of the Pension Rules provides that if excess payment is made to the government servant the recovery can be made from him. 7. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents. 8. The issue involved in this petition is whether excess payment can be recovered in view of specific provision made in Rule 65 of the Chhattisgarh Pension Rules, 1976. 9. 7. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents. 8. The issue involved in this petition is whether excess payment can be recovered in view of specific provision made in Rule 65 of the Chhattisgarh Pension Rules, 1976. 9. To better understand the issue raised in this petition, it is expedient for this Court to refer to the 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. Rule 65 of the Rules 1976 reads as under: “Rule 65 Recovery and adjustment of Government dues: (1) It shall be the duty of every retiring Government servant to clear all Government dues before the date of his retirement. (2) Where a retiring Government servant does not clear the Government dues and such dues are ascertainable: (a) an equivalent cash deposit may be taken from him. (b) out of the gratuity payable to him, his nominee or legal heir, an amount equal to that recoverable on account of ascertainable Government dues shall be deducted” Explanation: The expression “ascertainable Government dues” includes balance of house building or conveyance advance, arrears of rent and other charges pertaining to occupation of Government accommodation, over-payment of pay and allowances and arrears of income tax deductible at source under the Income Tax Act, 1961.” 10. Rules 65 empowered the State Government to recover the excess payment. The judgment cited by learned counsel for the petitioner in the case of State of Punjab and Others vs. Rafiq Masih (supra) is not applicable to the present facts of the case as the petitioner was Class-II gazetted officer and he was not wrongly permitted to work though he should have rightly been required to work against inferior post. In the present case, excess payment towards pay has been ordered to be recovered and the Chhattisgarh Pension Rules, 1965 empowers the State to recover. Even from the pleading made in the writ petition, it is quite vivid, that the petitioner has nowhere stated that excess payment was not made and it was right fixation of pay or not, the petitioner nowhere stated that pay fixation was made in accordance with the rules, as such recovery is bad in law. 11. Even from the pleading made in the writ petition, it is quite vivid, that the petitioner has nowhere stated that excess payment was not made and it was right fixation of pay or not, the petitioner nowhere stated that pay fixation was made in accordance with the rules, as such recovery is bad in law. 11. The Pension Rules 1976 has been framed by the State in exercise of power under Article 309 of the Constitution of India which is binding in nature and these Rules empowered the authorities to recover the excess amount, as such recovery order issued by the respondent is within the authority of respondent. But before recovery of excess amount any notice to the government servant is required because any action of the State which has civil consequence has to be given an opportunity of hearing as held by Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Bhagwan Das Shukla vs. Union of India, 1994 (6) SCC 154 wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held as under: 3. We have heard learned counsel for the parties. That the petitioner's basic pay had been fixed since 1970 at Rs. 190 p.m. is not disputed. There is also no dispute that the basic pay of the appellant was reduced to Rs. 181 p.m. from Rs. 190 p.m. in 1991 retrospectively w.e.f. 1812.1970. The appellant has obviously been visited with civil consequences but he had been granted no opportunity to show cause against the reduction of his basic pay. He was not, even put on notice before his pay was reduced by the department and the order came to be made behind his back without following any procedure known to law. There, has, thus, been a flagrant violation of the principles of natural justice and the appellant has been made to suffer huge financial loss without being heard. Fair play in action warrants that no such order which has the effect of an employee suffering civil consequences should be passed without putting the concerned to notice and giving him a hearing in the matter. Since, that was not done, the order (memorandum) dated 25.7.1991 which was impugned before the Tribunal could not certainly be sustained and the Central Administrative Tribunal fell in error in dismissing the petition of the appellant. The order of the Tribunal deserves to be set aside. Since, that was not done, the order (memorandum) dated 25.7.1991 which was impugned before the Tribunal could not certainly be sustained and the Central Administrative Tribunal fell in error in dismissing the petition of the appellant. The order of the Tribunal deserves to be set aside. We, accordingly, accept this appeal and set aside the order of the Central Administrative Tribunal dated 17.9.1993 as well as the order (memorandum) impugned before the Tribunal dated 25.7.1991 reducing the basic pay of the appellant From Rs. 190 to Rs. 181 w.e.f. 18.12.1970. 12. The Finance Department, Govt. of Chhattisgarh has also issued circular dated 06 July, 2015 wherein certain directions for recovery of excess payment has been issued. From bare perusal of the circular also provide that if any incorrect order of fixation of pay has been issued then a notice will be issued to him informing the fact that wrong fixation has been done and an opportunity to make representation will be given to the government servant thereafter speaking order has to be issued. From bare perusal of the circular also provide that if any incorrect order of fixation of pay has been issued then a notice will be issued to him informing the fact that wrong fixation has been done and an opportunity to make representation will be given to the government servant thereafter speaking order has to be issued. The relevant para of the circular is reproduced below: ^^jkT; 'kklu }kjk mijksDr U;k;ky; Hkqxrku ds Ádj.kksa ds laO;ogkj gsrq Á'kkldh; foHkkxksa dks fuEukuqlkj funsZf'kr fd;k tkrk gS%& ¼1½ 'kkldh; deZpkfj;ksa dks =qfViw.kZ osru fu/kkZj.k ds QyLo:i fd;s x;sA vf/kd Hkqxrku l{ke Lohd`fr ds fcuk osrueku dk Ánk;] fu/kkZfjr ÁfØ;k dk ikyu fd;s fcuk dh xbZ inksUufr vFkok fdlh vU; dkj.k ls fd;s x;s ik=rk ls vf/kd Hkqxrku bR;kfn dh tkudkjh tSls gh /;ku esa vkrh gS] rRdky mDr =qfV ds lq/kkj gsrq mi;qDr dk;Zokgh lqfuf'pr dh tk;sA ¼2½ ,sls Ádj.k ftlesa l{ke vf/kdkjh }kjk fdlh =qfViw.kZ vkns'k ds la'kks/ku dk fu.kZ; fy;k x;k gS] lacaf/kr 'kkldh; lsod dks ,d dkj.k crkvks lwpuk ;g lwfpr djrs gq, tkjh fd;k tk,xk fd mDr =qfViw.kZ vkns'k dks ftlds QyLo:i vf/kd Hkqxrku dh fLFkfr fufeZr gqbZ gS] la'kksf/kr djrs gq, vf/kd Hkqxrku dh olwyh dk fu.kZ; fy;k x;k gSA dkj.k crkvks lwpuk esa la'kks/ku laca/kh fu.kZ; dk Li"V dkj.k mYysf[kr fd;k tk;sxk] ftlls deZpkjh ;fn pkgs rks mDr vkns'k ds fo:} vH;kosnu ÁLrqr dj ldsA ;fn deZpkjh }kjk dksbZ vH;kosnu ÁLrqr fd;k tkrk gS] rks mDr vH;kosnu ij iw.kZr% fopkjksijkar ,d O;k[;kRed vkns'k tkjh fd;k tk;sxkA ¼3½ olwyh vkns'k tkjh djrs le; Ádj.k ds lHkh ifjfLFkfr;ksa dks fopkj esa fy;k tkuk pkfg;sA tgka vko';d gks lacaf/kr deZpkjh dks fd'rksa esa Hkqxrku djus dh lqfo/kk nh tk ldrh gS fdUrq ,slh lqfo/kk gsrq Á'kkldh; foHkkx dh Lohd`fr ÁkIr fd;k tkuk pkfg,A** 13. In the present case the State has issued recovery notice without giving opportunity of hearing in violation of the direction contained in circular dated 6th July, 2015, therefore, issuance of recovery notice without opportunity of hearing is bad in law. In the present case the State has issued recovery notice without giving opportunity of hearing in violation of the direction contained in circular dated 6th July, 2015, therefore, issuance of recovery notice without opportunity of hearing is bad in law. This Court cannot lose sight of the fact that the Rules 1976 provide power to the State to recover the excess amount but the power has to be exercised in judicial manner in conformity with the principle of nature justice, therefore, it is directed that recovery shall be kept in abeyance and a show cause notice will be issued to the petitioner where he can raise all his grievances whether recovery is justifiable or not, whether the pay fixation is wrong or correct and thereafter, the respondent who has issued recovery order will decide the same in accordance with the rules. The respondent shall issue notice to the petitioner and decision with regard to legality and propriety of recovery will be taken within outer limit of 4 months from the date of receipt of the copy of the order. 14. Accordingly, writ petition is allowed in part.