^ ^y^ E 'el '•'*• IN THE HJGH COUKTOF JUDICATURE AT BILASPUR fC.G.1 WRIT PETITION fS) N0. {A^> J_2009 PETITIONER ^ .^%^/' 'y.^ .-••'' ..•" ^ ff' ^r . IS^ ••', <<•-' ^^&' /^w ^•y"?' <?r^'.--"' ^l...^ RESPONDENTS V-^•.^'^^' '€» ^^.,.a»<^' Bhagat Ram Yadav S/o Late Sri Aitharam Yadav Aged-about 61 years, Retired Assistant Draftsman (Maanchitrakaar), R/o-Beladula, Kharraghat, Raigarh, Distt.- Raigarh [C.G.] VERSUS l.State of Chhatdsgarh Through- Secretaiy, Public Works Department, D.K.S. Bhawan, Raipur [C.G.] 2. Executive Engineer, Public Works Department, Division- Raigarh, Distt.- Raigarh [C.G.] 3. Sub Divisional OfScer, Public Works Department, Samgarh, Distt.- Raigarh [C.G.] ••'as^^y y WRIT PETITIQN UNDER AKTICLE 226 _QF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA FOR ISSUANCE OF APPROPRIATE WRIT, ORDER OR DIRECTIONS PETITiON (Sl N0.4285 OF 2j Bhaaat Ram Yadav State of Chhattisaarh and others tion under Articies 226 of the Constltution of india) 'ble Shri Shri Sanjay Patel, counsei for the petltioner. Shri A. V. Shridhar, Pane! Lawyer (Passed on this 3 day of Deceniber, 2009) With the consent of learned counsel for the parties, the petition is heard (2) By this petition, the petitioner seeks quashing of the order dated 06-11-2008 (Annexure P/1) passed by the respondent No.2-Executive Engineer, Public Works Department, Division-Raigarh, District Raigarh whereby an amount of Rs.34,224/- was deducted from the retirai dues of the (3) Leamed counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner, whiie working as "Anurekhak", retired with effect from 30-06-2008 on attaining the age of superannuation. Thereafter, by order dated 06-11-2008 (AnnexureP/2), recovery to the tune of Rs.34,224/- v/as directed to be made from the petitioner without affording him opportunity of hearing. Thus, the irnpugned order is bad in iaw, unjust and contrap/ to the principles of natural justice. .(4) On the other hand, Shri A. V. Shridhar, learned Panel Lawyer for the State would submit that this is not recoverv of the amount but it is an adju^tmenf because the petitioner has taken advance of Rs.74,829/- and the adjustment process is started during the period he was in sen/ice. The petitioner has submitted T.A. BiHs only to the tune of Rs.34,955/-, the remaining amount of Rs.28,174/- and other advance of Rs.6,050/- paid to him '%-s'^^'' •2_. through Sarangarh Sub Division is being recovered by way of adjustment. Learned SSate counsei further submits that in such a situation, no show cause i's necessan/ and information to tne effect has aiready been sent to the peiitioner on 30-09-2008 (Annexure R/3). Thus, it is not necessary to afford an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner after issuing show cause notice. (5) Be that as it may, without going into the merits of the case, if some recovery is to be made after retirement of an employee, he has to be afforded an opportunity of hearing and basic principle of natural justice has to be followed. Mere intlmation to the employee concerned does not satisfy the baslc requirement of principle of natural justice and fair play in action. (6) In view of the foregoing, the petition is allowed to the above extent. The impugned order dated 06-11-2008 (Annexure P/1) is quashed. However, tiberty is reserved to the State/respondents to take appropriate steps in accordance with law by foilowing principles of naturai justice. _,. - Satis Sd/- . _ tebK.^nihow judgt