>rt HI6H COURT OF CHHATTIS6ARH AT BILASPUR Wr-it Petition (5) No. 3737 of 2006 Petitioner Smt- Chandan Kunuiar Mnnikpuri, aged 64 yesrs, Wd/o LaTs Shri Balak Das R/o Tikropara, Tnhsil ond District Bilaspur (C.6.). Versus Respondants i. 5+ute of Oihattisgar-h, Through - Sscretary, OeparTment of Schsof Educution, &.K.5. Bhavan, Rnipur (C.&) DiSTricT Educstion Offscer, Biiaspur (C.6.). Joint i'Sirector. &ivisiorifll Office of Fund, AccounT a".d Psnsion, Bilsspur Division, Biiaspur (C.&) bistrict Treasurv Officer, Riiaspur (C.6.). WRIT PETmONUN&ER^RTICLE 226/227 OF TH! CONSTITUTION SB; Hon'bla Shri Sutjsh K. Agniholri. J. Shri Vimalesh Bajpai, Acivocnte for- the petitioner. Shri Ajay bwivedi, beputy Sov't'. Advocate for the respondents- ORAL OR&ER (Passsd on -this 22nd <iay of Apri!, 2008} 1. By -ri-iis petition the peti-i-ioner has chaltenged •rt-ie'validity of the order dated 23.6.2006 (Annesaire P/2) and the order- dated 13.7-2006 (Anriexur-e P/3) whereby the respondents have directed recovery of a sum of Rs. 4,10,670/- (Four Lacs, Ten Thousand, Six Hundred and Seven-ty) from the retira! dues of the petittorier-. ''ss •ss 2. Leamed counsel appeQping for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was appoin-i-ea as Assistant Teacher on 22.8-1962. While in service, the petitioner made an upplication on 28.5.1982 (Annexure P/l) for correction of her date of birth as '1.7.1942', in place of '1-7.1939. The petitionar was not aware of the fa-te of the upplication and she wns retirec! fi-oni service on 30.6.2004. After retirement of the petitionei* from service, uiithout affording on oppoi-tunity of hearing the respondents have passed the order dateci 23.6.2006 (Annexure P/2) and tiie order dated 13.7.2006 (Annexure P/3), whereby a tota! recovery of Rs. 4,10,670/- has been directed to be made from the retiral dues of the petitioner. On receiv'ii'ig ttie impugned orders of recover/, the petitioner made c representution(Annexure P/4). The r-espondents have passed the order ciated 28.2-2006 (Annexure P/5). whareby the date of birH-i of the petitioner was accepted as '01.07.1939'. 3. Tn suppori' of his contention that the recovery cannot be made without affording an opportunity of hearing, leamed counse! reiies on a decision uf Hon'bie the Suprenie Court in Sdhib Ra»n Vs. Stat®of Haryana aRal ontsrs and a decision of •'liis Cou-t m 2. Vidyadhar Tiwari Vs. Stats of Chhattisgarh & others 4. Tn vieui of the foregoing and ns adn'iitted by learned counse! appearing for both the pari-ies, this petition stands disposed of in terms of the order passed in -rt-ie case uf yidyadhar TiWuri (Supro), if tiie inipugned orders wer-e pnssed without affording an r<2fe5 %.M Thd<ur oppoi'tunily of hearing tu -rtie petitionei*. The orders duted 23.6.2006 (Annexure P/2) and the order dated 13.7.2006 (Annexure P/3) ar-e. quashed. The petitioner 'iS entitied tu fuil retiful bfinisfits, without sriv' deduction. Tlie u?H&unt. so dsducted be paid to the petitloner witth Siiriple inter-est. 5. However, the respondents are at iiberty to take recourse to Ru!e 65 af the Chhattisgor4i Civi! Services (Pension) Rules, 1976, if so advised, for the pur-pose of recovery and adjustment of Suvernment dues. in accordance with law nnd foilowinu basic prmciples uf riQ'hjrol Justii^. Mo or-ds.r as to costs. 6. Tn view of the ubove, this petition is aiiowed to the ubove extent. No costs. ^,. {1995 5upp (1) 5.C£.Z01}, {2006 (1) M.P.H.T. 105 (C.6.52} Sd7- Satish K.Agnihotri Judge