J 1 I ”>7 g g IN THE’HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR W‘ w.p.‘smo. 92m! ,a‘ggfogsHsmLEgEwtiH PETITIONER : Sandal ‘Ram Gupta, S/o Shri Palha Ram Gupta, aged about 56 § years posted as Peon in Government Hlgher Secondary - School, Dongitarai, District- Réu'garh (C.G.) 3 VERSUS ‘ \ 1 ! REsfNDENTs :1? State of Chhatusgarh Through b The Secretaryl, Department of Educatlon D K S Bhawan, Raipur 1 (C G) § K . Z} ~ 2. The Joint Director, Tresury, Accounts & ‘Pension, ‘Bilaspur Divisio’n, Bilaspur7(C.G.): 3. The Principal, Government Higher i 1 K District-Raigarh Secondary School, (C.G.) Dongitarai, E IWRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA v’ a?\ga Ln 3. Learned ooUnsei appearing for the State submits that if notice has » not been assuéd, the recovery would be made after affordmg proper ; opportunity of hearing in thexlight of oatena of decisions of the Supreme Court as weii as of this Court. ($ee Sahib Ram v. Stare 5 of Haryana and bfhers’, P: Tulsidas and'others v, Gavemmaat a!“ ‘ _. .V Zr. 1995 Supp (1) scc 20} \\__ I i v v Rgaégw ' 1 HiaH COURT OF CHHAfTisGAR -. BJLASPUR ‘ WR§T PETITION iSiNQZ‘M F 201G I PETIT§ONER _ ‘ Sandal Ram G ‘ pm. , . Vetsus g, RESPGNDENTS I $tate of Chhattwsgérh & Others Artlcies 226 of the donsnmtaon of india) 3 ‘ (Wni Patmon under $mgie Bench Hon ble Shn Satish Agmhotn J Present .- Shn R Pradhan counsei tor the gretgtloner } ‘ Shn Y S Thakur Dy Adv Genera‘ for me State ” “ _ RoeR (ORAL) (Passed on tms 215‘ day of January, 2010) 1. . With the consent of iee‘rned counsei agpearmg for the parties, the L ' I 1 petition as heard fmalty Leamed counset appeermg for the petmoner submits that the petitioner is workmg as‘ Peon has been served an order dated 31 51 0-2009 (Ahnexure — PM) for recovery of a sum of R555 567% on account of the fact thet the petttioner was paid excess amount ‘ r since the date of his appointment. Learned counsel further submits that before issue of the impugned order principtes of natural justice and fair piay in action has not been f‘oii‘owed., Shri Pradhan submits I that no order prejudicing the interest of an empioyee can be passed without affording an opportunity ofhearin’g. %@ AP. and othersg} Syed Abdui Qadir and o rs v. Stafe of Bihar and 1 ofhers3, Rajasfhan State Road Transpor! Corporaticn and Another ‘v, Ba! Mukund Baiiwa (2)4 and Ashish Ku ar Jha v. State of QG. ’ Anemef). For the reasons mentioned hereinabove, the impugned order dated 31-10-2009 (Annexure -— Pi‘i) is quashe:d.. However, liberty is ~7eserved to the respondent authorities to imke aboropriate sténs, if . so advised, in accordance with iaw. in the result, the writ petition is aiiowed to the extent indicated above. M‘ w Sd/— Gown _ ‘ Jud%g‘ej 2 {AIR 2003 SC 48} . 3r (2009) 3 sec 475 4 {2009) 4 scc 299 5 2009 (2) CGLJ 163 8: i / :I