§ I te o tsgar roug he ecretar‘gi Departmen ' ducatlon D K S Bhawan Ra1 C G 2; Jint Diér, ‘The o reto T Ats 8 Pn resury, ccoun a ens10 llaspur D1v131on Bllaspur (C e Pr1nc1pa1 Government Hlgher econdary Schoo ongltaral 1str1ct algarh (C f tl. ,’‘ ON'I TITN OF INDI w ?§ 0/ __ v, / Prem Ll a Sao, $/ 0 Lt ae Jl ugal Sao, a 4 y p s P n G ir Sy S Dg, D Rgh ) IN 1THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BELAS‘PUR .P.IS)No. a? lw 2 P’ER E’LITION ged about ears osted a eon i overnment Hghe econdar Ehool onitarai 1stnct alar (C G VERSUS l Sta f Chhatih Thh- T S t ot‘ E pur ( ) / B G ) Th g S l D A D R G ) ‘ RESRONDENTS \/ 3. WRIT PETITI N, * CONSUTIO A HIGH CGURT OF CHHATT!SGARH BILASPUR WRW PETITION (S) NO 275 4W 201 0 (Writ Petition under Articles 226 of the Constitution of india) Single Bench Hon ble Shn Satish Agmhotn J Present .- LShn R Pradhan counseitorthe petmoner ShnYS Thakur Dy Adv Generaiforthe State ( RDtR 10 L) ‘ (Passed on this 21$ day of JanLary, 201 0‘ With the consent of learned counse! appearing for the parties the petition Is heard finally : Learned counsel appearing for the petittoner submits that the ’ petitioner ts working as Peon has been served an order dated r 31 1O 2009 (Annexure - PH) fer recovery cf a sum 0f Rs 18 052/- on account of the fact that the petitioner was paid excess amount I smce the date of his appomtment Leamed counsei further submits : that before issue cf the Impugned order ormcroles of naturai gustice T " -‘hat no order pregudrcrng the Interest of an emptovee can be passed Without affording an opportunity of hearing. Learned Lccunset .apoearingfcr the $tate submits that if notice has not been issued the recovery woutd be made after affording proper . opoO'tumtv of hearmc m the light of catena of decaSions of the ' x _ Supreme Court as wet! as of this Court (See Sahib Ram v State t - cf Han/ans and others P Tufsrdas and others v Government of. - and ¥ear play m action has not been fonowed Shh Pfadhan submits . "{tgatss'uppmmocéo} ‘s .. J - PEritloNER , - Prem Lat Sac I. _ Versus ‘ RESPGNDENTS _ ‘tate-of Chhatt sgam & Others, L \ ‘ V ¢ « \ \ (A P and othersz syed Abdul Qadu’ and others v Sfate cf Blhar and athers Raja than state Road Transpolt orparation and Another iv. Ba! Mukund Bailwa (2)4 and Ashish Ku rJha v, State of C.G, & . 'iAnofheF). ‘For the reasons mentioned heremabove t e Impugned order dated 31 10-2009 (Annexure -- Pl’l) Is quashed However, liberty rs J ‘ reserved to the resuondent authorities to take appropriate steps If so advrsed m accordance With law in the result, the writ petition is ailowed:to the extent indicated r ‘abov. -' e r I FT.“rm r / Sd/— SATISH K. AGN'IHOTRI Judge 2 {A r R 2603 Se 433x .. (20093 3 scc 475 (”0w 4 scc 29 5 2009 (2) CGLJ 160 I