^ ^'/w?y_- s ia.3'ft,'irw ^sf,'p,Qi,i IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR X2 WRIT PETITION (S) NO..<..°..^...OF 2008 PETITIONER ^"•^ ^^t^!::5 ,. -^^y^ r^.>-"^ RESPONDENTS VERSUS ^ ^on ^^\^ &^u Joljas Tirkey S/o Late Shri Vishram Tirkey aged about 36 years working as Multipurpous Health Worker (Male) Comniuniti Health Center Lailunga, Dist. Raigarh (C.G.) State of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary Health Department D.K.S. Bhawan Mantralaya, Raipur (C.G.) The Director, Health Services Raipur Dist. Raipur (C.G.) Chief Medical Officer District Hospital Raigarh Dist. Raigarh (C.G.) Block Medical Officer Communiti/Primary Health Centar Lailunga, Dist. Raigarh (C.G.) WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE COUNSTITUTION OF INDIA. 1 ^'^••^t"'•'' aii^n 'w l<-)i<* 'cPff ^n^T iai^iqn v< 'TST'<11<<i«<1, ®T<l'M'i6,fs«rll<-fl),< ^..M., Sf^l 'T^? ('iqI'i'Ki1!) wnw ^ifci sii^i SB: Hon'ble Shri Manindra Wtohtin Shrivastava. J. grourjds 14-07-2010 Shri R.S. Patei, counsetfor 1 Shri V.V.S. Murthy, State/respondents. Learned counsel for the recovery of excess payment was Heatth Workere on identical passed on 14/11/2007 by the C which was chaltenged before this been finally decided by order pelitioner submits that his case is may be quashed. Leamed counsel for respondente in making recovery d< petitioner was wrongly granted necessary training, increment was A perusai of order dated No.227/08 shows ftat identical issi wherein MulUpurpose Heaith order of withdrawai of increment training and as the increment sought to be recovered. The actii recovery was ordered without also contended that payment onc^ (he petitiwier. peputy Advocate Oenerai for the betitioner submits that simiiar action of initiated against the other iyiultipurpose and in their eases, similar ordars were tiief Medical and Heaith Offleer, Raigarh Court in W.P.(s) No.2277/08 whteih has d*ted 5/5/2010. Learned counsei for the |dentical and therefore the impugned order issilie WorWers W21S affoi|ding t*l<licl41-f •WRffif fetZt •!ftR5R iTsiRnsn^fi submitted that the action of ^es not suffer from any iilegaiity and as the jnerements ttiough he had not obtained |ightiy withdrawn. $/52010 passed by Uiis Court in W.P.(S) arose for consideration before thls Court who were granted increments suffered ^ on the ground that ttey had obtained wrongly granted, excess payment was ()n was challenged on the ground that the any opportun'rty of hearing and it was made, coutd not be reeovered when such 3]i^!vi h-n* wirsn^twite DsspS 's^; •^i<<i<nq, exilyTS', fatiiyy Sf^f 'q^q; (i^jgg^q) TOIIW ^ifci a'n^i payment was not on account of fr^i petiUoner. In the opiniori of this Court,] dated 5/5/2010 passed in the Aecordingiy, the impugned order) excess payment is hereby qua^ recovered, the petitioner is also to verification of the facts. respondente to take any steps, if recovery of excess payment, if any[ The petiUon is aitowed to th4 There shall be no order as t<> 4ud or misrepresentaUon on the part of the [this case^ squarefy covered by the oiider 4ase of Avinish Anamd Waiter (Supra). dated 14/11<"2007 directing recovery of i^hed. If the amount has already been er|titied to refond of the said amount, subject Hcn|fever, liberty is reseroed to the State/ so advised. in accordance WUh taw for •*wici4)-f w^vS'? ft^t 'rf'ii«;i< ^•.sfRmatK^ extent indtoated above. costs. iMa Sd/- . _.J x»n^M^nsbrivastav1 Judge ]