@ / IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BILASBUR WRIT PETITION N0. M3 5 /2003 ARVIND PATERIA, SON OF LATE CHHANNI LAL 'PATERIA, AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS, RETIRED FOOD INSPECTOR, RESIDENT OF SUNDAR NAGAR, RAIPUR (C.G.) ~ PETITIONER (‘1.STATE OE CHHATTISGARH, VS. THROUGH THE SECRETARY, MINISTRY OE FOOD AND CIVIL SUPPLIES, MANTRALAYA, D.K.S. BHAVAN, RAIPUR (C.G.) Single Bench ‘ 5» R g $ “‘4 2. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR V &?‘ Y 2‘ av (“”é Q) DISTRICT ELECTION OFFICER RAIPUR (C.G.) / RESPONDENT§ WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLES 226/ 227 OF THE L , N CONSTITUTION OF INDIA Mwmmxx’ I “a A“ mrrn nnmrr—nrrxx?m. HIGH COURT OF'CHHATTISGARH : BILASPUR WRDT PETIT!ON NO. 2738 OF 2003 PETITIONER Arvind Pateria Versus State 0f Chhattisgarh & Another (Writ Petition under Atticle 226/227 of the Constitution of india) Single Bench : Hon’bie Shri Satish K. Agnihotri, J. Present :- Shri Ajit Singh, Advocate appears on behalf of Shri B.P. Sharma, Adv‘ocate for the petitioner; . a RESPONDENTS Shri N.N. Roy, Panel Lawyer for the State. ORDER ORAL (Passed on this 30 h day of March, 20.10) , Heard teamed counsel for the parties. ' ‘2. Chailenge in this petition is to the memo dated 22-2-1 999 where/by the petitioner has been asked to deposit a sum of Rs.70,000I-. 3. Learned counsei appearing for the petitioner submits that since the ., petitioner has retired from service on 31-12-1997, no recovery can be made. Section 9 of the M.PJC.G. Civil Services (Pension) Rules; 1976 (for short “the Rules, 1976") deals with the period of recovery of money on instituting the departmental enquiry. 4. v On the other hand, learned counsei appearing for the State submits that this is not a case of excess payment in salary or othenNise; It is a clear case wherein the petitioner was given a sum of Rs.2,00,000l- for the purpose of arranging refreshment at the rate of Rs.130/— per person per constituency during the election period. ln response to s the show cause notice, the petitioner has not expiained' the expenditure except that the documents are already available with’the office of Food Controiler, Raipur. The petitioner has neither denied ; = nor admitted any expenditure. The allégation ihat the peh'tioner has. not spent a sum of Rs.70,000/-, remains unreplied by the petitions! r before the authorities as we“ as before this Court. > it is not the case of the petitioner that a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- was not : paid to him, as admittedly a sum of Rs.2,00,000l— has been paid to ; the petitioner towards expensa for refreshment at the rate of Rs.130f- per person per constituency. it appears further that the I petitioner has not tiled any expenditure cermicate ‘mdicating thathe has spent the entire amount paid to him. Even the petitioner‘is not, E . denyrng the allegahons of non~payment of Rs 7O OOOI- Thus, the order passed by the Collector Is lust and proper and needs no interference. Reliance of the petitioner on the provisionsrof‘Section 9 of the Rules, 1976 is not applicable to the facts of the case on hand, as there is no V deduction from the pensionary benetits. The petitioner was giwn sufticientvopportunity to reply to'the show cause notice, but the petitioner has not submitted any reply to the said show cause nodes. _ 7. l-ln the result, the writ petition fails and is hereby dismissed. However, if the petitioner submi$ the details of expenses made by a him; the authorities may consider and pass appropriate orders, in s accordance with law. 8. No o‘rder asto ‘cos$. x‘ i Judge ‘ ’-\:;_ " ‘ . Sd/u ~ i Satish K.Agnihotri ‘Jf