'.J; BEiGK ^\^i_ IN THE HON'LBEL HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR W. P. (S)No. *^0~T'9 /2011 PETITIONER \y^^ >''^<i.^.l"'- -.••• -n ^^^^:":..--' yf"^\,.--'" ...•^^^•'"' .**' ^" RESPONDENTS ^ Amardas Gadpai]tle .S/o Late Shri Girdharilal Gadpayle aged about- 66 years, Retd. Head Master,R/o Ambedkar Chowk Ward no.6, Motipur, 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.) Block Education Officer, Rajnandgaon, District- Rajnandgaon (C.G.) Treasury Officer, Rajnandgaon District- Rajnandgaon (C.G.) WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA. The above named-Petitioners respectfully submit as under:- 1. PARTICULARS OF PETITIONER As mentioned in the cause title. 2. PARTICULARS OF RESPONDENTS '• As mentioned in the cause title. ^ ^ sn^sw ft'fi'* <?TqT SH^T stt*ii<!»t iWRtT <»>*<iq» 'yss -t{wiv\ti, yal^'Ko, f®i<viiyy,< ^^..»1^)^^.B<TS^ sn^tT (1pt^<t() ^mm^teiaii^i SB : Hon^ble Shri Manindra^lo 17-06-2011 Shri Anup Majumdar, cour|s Shri A.V. Shridhar, Panel By this petition, the petj| recovery of Rs.40,638/- from the| his retirement. Learned counsel appearins wasworking on the postof Head| of second pay up-gradation with| years of service. The petitioner respondent No.4 issued the orde( dues payabie to the petitioner. passed w'thout affording any opp< In support of his contentit)n afrordjng an opportunity of hearii Hon'ble theSupreme Court in Sa| 1995SUDP. (DS.C.C.20, a State of Chhattisaarh & other Tiwari v. Stateof C.G. & other anA In view of the foregoing for both the parties, this petition| passed in the case ofVidyadhar| passed without affording an opp|artunity order of recovery is therefore qua^t *wfi'i<fl-< '^iid'l' '91^t <Rii«ti< ^? sifgH an^r an Shrivastava. J. >el for the petitioner. 4awyer for the State. foner has challenged the order of illegal retirat dues, payable to the petitioner after for the petitioner submits that the petitioner 1 Master. The petitioner received the benefit leffect from 17/3/99 aftercompletion of 24 itetired from service on 31/1/07. Thereafter, ofTecovery of Rs.40,638/- from the retirai 'he impugned order of recovery has been ^rtunity of hearing to the petitioner. that recovery cannot be made witftout |ig, learned counsel relies on a decision of ihib Ram v. State of Harvana and others. dedsion of this Court in Vidvadhar Tiwari v, . 2006 (11 M.P.H.T. 105(C.G.l and R.R. *,2008(2)C.O.L.Ji.3aO. as admitted by ieamed counsel appearing stands disposed of in terms of the order ITiwari (Supra), if the impugned order was of hearing to the petitioner. The ^hed. The petitioner is entitled to fuil retiral <110<(;W ]i=n<l tl<"llrifl, (RFriWra—FS/140—2/2011—1,50,000. E8sire 4-1 1 &1 ;1 / /'' XI-HC—78 WfllCtl «a*ll<*» yST'<11-41Cl^,®Tll'H'IS,fqcll-H^ \^,f>.(&^ LVD<303T!:1/II "^200 SIi^T 'CRSR (ijcji^^) SS^V qil K-Vsh "^r sn^i s»>tiicn i^.E..^ .«....=......: ,!-,-«-.i-^-.< ;>f;s^;]K^n Deepii "?^TOR ^feT ^TT^T ^ benefits, without any deductionj petitioner with simpie interest. —*-^]^^^^^s open to th^ ,«,^Jbs-CAhdB^a*^ffvilServices (I •Ba^BiMAiMS.QWtWH^'! ... ., . „ . rp%'6"df~rec6very and adjustnt law and following basic principle^ In i^WMIe above, this| order as to costs. ^I^Rh 'IffR^ff ^T 1^3t ^l-^K ^sifiiHair^r The amount, so deducted be paid to the respondents to take recourse to Rule 65 of Pension) Rules, 1976, if so advised, for the |ent of Government dues, in accordance with of natural justice. petition is allowed to the above extent. No Sd-/ .,:: • MMiindra Mohan Shrivastava •^'