$5§§€§§E §3E§EQ§~§ BEFORE THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF‘CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WRIT PETITION (s) No. is O 2 /2oxo / shm' Kama! Namyun Choubey, S/o. Lafe 5hri Gakul Pmsad Choubey, Aged about 67 years, R/o. 'Saras Vihar Cotony, Near Buchpan Hospifal, Mahadev Ghai Road, Raipur (C.Q.). ETITIONER wag “a .I.’ VERSUS ESPONDENTS 1. " sum of Chhamsgarh, Through fhe Secretary, Schoof Edaca‘rion Department Manfmlaya, D.K.S. Bhawan, Raipur. 2. The Divisional Joint Director, Treasury d: Pension Department, Through the District Treasury Officer, Raipur Division, Raipur (C.G.). 3. The Accountant General, Office of Accountant Genemi, Raipur (C.G.) 4. The Senior Account Officer, Office of the Accountant General, Raipur (6.6.) WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA P R w WWLW,W WW 00 mm (WEI) Vammm mmfa‘m mmm ' WW;:§?—f§m . B:Hun’ble hriManindtaMoha Shr astav 29-96-2010 Shri Arvind Dubey, cou nse‘ for the petitioner. Shri Bhaskar Payashi, Pane! LaW‘ er for the State/respandents No. 1 & 2 on advance copy‘ é Smt Nilima Verma, standing co !ndia 0n advance copy. Heard This: petition has been fiied again tthe Show cause notice dated 14—01— 2010 (Annexure P4), by which, respond nts No3; & 4 have proposed recovery from the peneion of the petitioner. ' V Submission of iearned counsei f0 the petitioner is that the petitioner has retired in the year 2005, and til! his retire ent, neither any recovery proceedings were initiated nor any recovery was orde ed, and after lapse of five years of his retirement, the impugned notice have be n issued for making recovery, which is whoiiy impermissibie under the law. It is further submitted that no excess payment has been made to the petitioner nd the same is without any basis. A perusai of the Annexure P—1 s owe that it is a show cause notice. it would be open for the petitioner to file a propriate repiy to the said show cause ts that such recovery is not called for e! for respondents No3 & 4iUnion of u notice and to demonstrate to the respo n on such grounds as may be available to im under the law. lt is expected that on No.3 & 4 wiii consider the same in accordance with law before taking any a ion against the petitioner. With the aforesaid provision, the etition is finally disposed of. . such reply being filed, the respondev n Ma‘nindra i Mohan Sdl— Shrivast/ztgJVI n V ‘ ‘ Judge “My"; r»,- Tume H9 S a J. n