9mm !: ”mm § og‘m IN THE HON’BLE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR (C.G.) Za// I w.P.(S) No ......... g .Q41?.....2m PETITIONER Smt.Vimla Laurence,aged 66 years W/o Late.Shri V.K. Laurence, Retd. Asstt. Teacher, Govt. Girls Primary SchooL Dongargaon, R/o Shikshak Colony, Dongargaon, Distt. Rajnandgaon (C.G.) Versus RESPONDENTS /, / (1) The State Govt. of Chhattisgarh Through — The Secretary, 'School Education Department, D.K.S. Bhawan, Raipur (C.G.) (2) Divisional Joint Director, Kosh, Lekha and Pension, , Raipur C.G. (3) District Treasury Officer, Rajnandgaon. y HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR @ WRIT PETITION (S) NO. 195 OF 2011 Petitioner Smf. Vlmla Laurence Versus Respondents The State Govt. of Chhattisgarh & Others WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226/227 OF THECONSTITUTION OF INDIA (SB : Hon’ble Mr. Satish K. Agnihotri, J.) Present :- Shri Ajay Shrivastava, Advocate for the petitioner. I Shri N.N.Roy, Panel Lawyer for the State/respondents. ORDER {ORAL} (Passed on 15 day of March, 201 1) § 1. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that after retirement of the petitioner on 31 .01 .2005, the recovery of the alleged excess payment during service was ordered on 30.08.2005. The petitioner has preferred this petition on 11.01 .201 1, on the ground that the exercise of recovery of the excess payment, without following due process of law and further without following the well settled principles of law, as laid down by the Supreme Court in Sahib Ram v. State 'of Halyana and others', the order has been passed, whichls vitiated and may be quashed. On the other hand, leamed State counsel without justifying the stand, which appears to be contrary to the well settled principles of law, opposed the petition on the ground of delay. ltis made clear that the delay is not applicable in case of the writ petition, as there ls no provision for limitation. However, the question of laches may be raised, if there is a long inordinate unexplained delay. 11995 Supp(1)scc18 @ In the case on hand, the impugned order was passed on 30.08.2005 and the petition has been flied on 11.01 .201 1. Thus, it cannot be held that it was inordinate long delay, which creates a third party interest in favour of the some other party. Thus, the petition of the respondents] State in respect of the laches is rejected. Law is we" settled and having regard to the facts that despite the law- laid down by the Supreme Court way back and thereafter by this Court in the matter of Vidyadhar Tiwari v. The State of Chhattisgarh & Othersz and Vidya Shankar Tiwan' v. State of M.P. (Now Stats of Chhattisgarh) and others3 and thereafter followed in several decisions, '5 the authorities are passing the order without taking care of the well settled principles of law. ln the result, the impugned order dated 30.08.2005 is quashed. The' /« writ petition is allowed. No order asto costs. M/ MW“ WM / sd/—' Satish K' Agnm Judge otrt Arun 2 2006 (1) MPHT 105 (0G) 3 2006 (2) MPHT 31 (CG)