/ Jgf '1 By this petition, the petitioner impugns the order dated 31-3-2007 : (Annexure PM) whereby a sum of Rs. 62,884l— has been directed to be deducted from the retriai dues of the petitioner. 2) Undisputed facts, in t‘ne present case, are that tnitiaiiy the petitioner was appointed as Lower Divtsion Cierk on 20-11—1964 in the Tribai Weifare Department. Subsequeiontiy, he was promoted to the post of Accountant. On 31-5-2006,the petitioner, while working as Accountant, retired on attaining the age of superannuation from the Tribal Welfare Department {Annexure P/5). The petitioner received communication order dated 31-3-2007 HIGH COURT OF cimATTHSGARi-i: BSLASPUR Writ ?eiition {S3 No. 49% cf 2:367 Petitioner Thakur Prasad Patwa. Slo‘ Laxmi Prasad Patwa‘ Aged abGut 61 years, resident of Ramgudi Para, Raigarh, District Raigarh (CG). Versus Respondents 1) State of Chha‘rtisgarh‘ through the Secreiary, Department’of Tribal WeKare, D.KVS.‘ Bhawan? Raipur(CG). 2) The Commissioner, Tribai Weifare, D.K‘S. fBhawan, Raipur (Chhattisgar’n). 3) The Joint Director, Accounts, Treasury & Pension, Biiaspur (CG). 4) The District Treasure Ofncer, Raigarh, District Raigar‘n (CG). 5) The Assistant Director, Tribal Development, Raigarh (CG). (Writ Petition under Articie 226 of the Constitution of indie) $3: Hon’bie Mr. Satish K. Agnihotri, J. Present: Shri Pushpendra Kumar Patei, counsei‘for the petitioner. Shri AS. Kachhawaha, Dy. Advocate Generat for the State. ORAL ORDER (Passed on 13‘“ Fe'btuary. 2mg) (Annexure), whereby it ws directed that a sum of Rs.62,884l- be deducted from the pensionew benefits settied to the tune of R31 .69,290/-. 3) The petitioner has fiied this petition praying that the impugned order dated 3i 3-2007 (Annexure Pm deducting a sum of Rs. 62,884l- from the pensionery benefits of the petitioner’ without affording an opportunity of hearing to put forward case of the petitioner, to the petitioner is iiiegai: arbitrary and unreasonable. 4) Learned counsei appearing for the petitioner submits that the case of the petitioner is squarely covered by the order dated 17-11-2805 passed by this Court in Writ Petition No. 3212 of 2GO4 i’ Vfdyadhar Tiwan’ Vs. The State of Chhattisgarh and otherS) (Annexure Pi6). Learned caunse} further submits that this petition may be disposed of in the same terms. 5} Learned counsei appearing for the Stateirespondents does not dispute the submissions made by learned counsei appearing for the petitioner and has no objection, if this petition is disposed of in the same terms. 6) The petition is accordingiy al-lowed in the same terms i.e., the impugned order dated 31-3-2007 (Annexure PI1) directing recovery of the amount aiiegediy paid to the petitioner in excess, is hereby quashed. The petitioner is entitied to fuli pensionary benefits without any deduction. No order asto costs. sit/— Satish K.Agnihotri ' Judge ‘ Raju