c^ Iffij^l^ t.^!>»"'?!^t WS'i"3' ^ IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHAmSGARH AT BILASPUR W. P. ( S 1 N^_ /2011 PETITIONER Jairam S/o Late Maghar Ram, aged about 71 years, Occupation- Retired Headraaster, R/o Village Birimkela, Post Bataikela Sitapur, Distt. Surguja (C.G.). VERSUS RESPONDENTS s-'''^-^' • ^/ •y 1;' 1. State of Chhattisgarh, Through Secretary School Education Department, D.K.S. Bhawan, Raipur (C.G.) 2. The Accountant General, Accounts & Pension Fund-3, Pagaria Building Pandari, Raipur District Raipur (C.G.) 3. The Deputy Director, Pension Authority, Office of Joint Director Treasury and Pension, Bilaspur Division, District Bilaspur (C.G.) 4. The District Education Officer, Education District Ambikapur Districf Sarguja (C.G.) 5. The Treasury Officer Ambikapur, District. Sarguja (C.G.) WRIT PETITtON UNDER ARTICLE 226 OFTHE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PARTICULARS OF THE PETITIONER: As stated in.the cause title above %,, .< «siL.^<<y ^!!-^' ;S:I"HC—78 SS^I'VlWR; OTlsii^rgiqh; nsl ^£T^TPTRTO, ^ftwre, fsjcfiyy ^^)f^.\^T^\ *ii*lCTl »»*<ra» """"•"••••'••"•TEpi 200 •W^t'^^ (^f^^tl) wiwgfeian^T ^NOTtTiiwifTf rgi<i| ^^ iTsiRitan^l SB : Hon'ble Shri Manindra Nohan SnnvdSt 13-05-2011 Shri Shakti Raj Sinha, ct>unset for the petitioner. Shri Sushil Dubey, GOV petitioner, without affording ar] fcmment Advocate for the State. Learned counsel for th^ petitioner submits that after retirement of ths y opportunity of hearing or giving show cause notice, the recovery has beerf made from the petHioner. It is also submitted that ttie payments which wer^ made by the petitioner, were not the resuit of any fraud or misrepresentatio|i on the part of the petitioner and it was on the basis of fixation of pay made by order dated 9/4/09 passed &y the respondents, the petitioner was paid the salary. He submits that the is|sue involved in this petition is squareiy covered nW.P.(S)No.267/09. Leamed state counse) submits that he does not dispute the legai position as laid down in the aft>resaid order. Consequently, in term^ of order passed in tie aforesaid order, this petition is also allowed. The pmpugned order of recovery is hereby quashed. The petitioner is entitled to (>ension benefrts without any deduction. if the amount has already been r^covered, the petitioner is entitied to the said amount with interest at the rajle of 6% per annum. However, it is open for the respondents to take recours^ to Rute 65 of the Rutes of 1976, if so advised, in accordance w'rth law, follo|wing ttie basic principtes of naturai justice. No order as to costs. Manmdra Mohan Shrivaslava Judge t. l'i .!>! /J?-,. ^-t h;;^? n w IX a ^,:A.^ i8 •^^ K!S' tBi !I.'BI ild