G^ IN THE HON'LBEL HIGH COURT OF CHHATTiSGARH A~ BILASPUR W. P. (S)No.''3° /2011 PETITIONER .^y^ .''••"''->'\ -.-••''- ?-'s^"" ..•••"~ .e?i*v'"\^\.y" ^^y" y^..••••"' •<*" ^ RESPONDENTS ^-2, Premlal Verma S/o Late Shri Gannu Ram Verma aged about- 66 years, Retd. Head Master, R/o Bajrangpur Nawagaon, Ward no.1, District- Rajnandgaon (C.G.) Versus State of Chhattisgarh, Through:- The Secretary, Education Department, D.K.S. Bhawan Raipur, Distt.- Raipur District Education Officer, Rajnandgaon, District- Rajnandgaon (C.G.) Biock Education Officer, Rajnandgaon, District- Rajnandgaon (C.G.) Treasury Officer, Rajnandgaon District- Rajnandgaon (C.G.) WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTIO_N OFINDIA. The above named Petitioners respectfully submit as under:- 1. PARTICULARS OF PETITIONER 2. As mentioned in the cause title. PARTICULARS OF RESPONDENTS As mentioned in the cause title. ^v- XI-HC—78 ^ "3'S? "4!<<|cl--j, »fl)'l-l'|t»,[si<?ll'M^< w-i.(F>-(^)vu&- 3<5^ajij an^l^lfwi* kW.CT^TBifflW TOIBTC tiftg •ai^? '^l^i'^N '^f^ ^? fS^ if^t^K ^; Sffm 3TI^?I SB: 1-ion^bie Shri^lanindra IVIoHanShrivasiava. J. 17-OS-2011 Shri Anup Majumdar, coun; Shri A.V. Shridhar, Panel By this petition, the petitji recovery of Rs.32,604/- from the his retirement. Learned counsel appearingj for was working on thepost of Head of second pay up-gradation with years of service. The petitioner r^i respondent No.4 issued the impugned the retiral dues payable to the p^t has been passed without affoijding petitioner. In support or his contentiijin affording an opportunity of hearirlg, Hon'ble the Supreme Court in Sahib ^el for the petitioner. L^wyer for the State. joner has challenged ttie order of illegai Iretiral dues, payabte to the petitioner after the petitioner submits that the petltioner Pvlaster. The petitioner receh/ed the benefit leffect from 17/3/99 after comptetion of 24 rbtired from service on 31/1/08. Thereafter, order of recovery of Rs.32,604/- from ^titioner. The impugned order of recovery any opportunity of hearing to the that recovery cannot be made without learned counsel relies on a decision of Ram v. State of Harvana and others. 1995 SUDD. (1) S.C.C. 20. a dec| State of Chhattisgarh &otherd sion of this Court in Vidvadhar Tiwari v. , 2008 (11 M.P.H.T. 105 lC.G.I and R.R. 'iwari v. State of C.G. & otheri. 2008 i2) C.G.L.J. 390. in view of the foregoing an<ji for both the parties, this petition| passed in the case of Vidyadhar| passed without affording an order of recovery is therefore quafe as admitted by iearned counsel appearing stands disposed of in terms of the order ITiwari (Supra), if the impugned order was opp^rtunity of hearing to the petitioner. The quafehed. The petitioner is entitled to fuii retiral 731 -liwivi^, yfll'M-'ic, fsidi'yy bo.f-0')l^:'.-^l^^./_t[ s^ T^V (^3^?) 3il$g W (<;•)!* 3t^!rsb*< '-^>~-,t] ,-f-, Dsepti s?- benefits, without any deduction.) petitioner with simple interest. - ?o » <?M6w6veT,.:itci§open to thej .;«tneChhayagflgiin^Qtvil Sen/ices d frT^*^,-^^^ - r^^f^^f Q-5t. f f-^^,' V^L^?S? '? yl* ypurj58se'6f'r^;0^isy>and adjustmf law and following basic principie^ in viewpfct^ above, this| order as to costs. The amount, so deducted be paid to the respondents to take recourse to Rule 65 of Pension) Rules, 1976, ifso advised, for the [ent of Government dues, in accordance with of natural justice. petition is allowed to the above extent. No VI'£&W^Rt!W<-iI tf r^>d) <Ri|<(li ^siRffTsn^r Sd-/ Manindra Mohan Shrivastava V Judge t^lloiff, <M.iR'l)ef—FS/140—2/2011—1,50,000. 4-