1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR WRIT PETITION NO 5176 OF 2010. Shakila Begum W/o Liyakat Ali Khan. .Vrs. State of Maharashtra, thr. Its Secretary, Department of Rural Development,Mantralaya,Mumbai and Others ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders Court's or Judge's or directions and Registrar's orders. Orders. CORAM : B. P. DHARMADHIKARI & P.D.KODE, J J. DATED : 15.06.2011 Heard. The challenge is to recovery of amount of Rs,1,50,581/-(rupees One Lac Fifty Thousand Five Hundred and Eighty One) from the retirement benefits of the Petitioner on the ground that said amount has been erroneously paid to him in excess. It is further stated that he did not obtain B.Ed. qualification within a period of 5 years from 1992 and hence annual increments released in his favour were unwarranted. 2 According to Mr. Patil, learned Counsel for petitioner, Petitioner was superannuated in 2008 and his gratuity amount has been withheld for alleged recovery. He contends that alleged excess payment is in fact not unwarranted and he further argued that quantum worked out is also incorrect. According to him had respondents granted Petitioner an opportunity of hearing the issue could not have been sorted out. According to learned Assistant Government Pleader for respondent No.1 and Mr. Mishra, learned Counsel for respondent Nos.2 and 3 as petitioner did not obtain necessary training qualification within a period of 5 years the increments could have been drawn in her favour, hence the recovery order in accordance with the law. The petitioner is trying to urge that there is no excess payment and she is also attempting to demonstrate that quantum worked out is incorrect. We, therefore, find that the issue can be 3 conveniently looked into by respondent No.2. The respondent No.2 shall give petitioner an opportunity of hearing and thereafter pass fresh order in the matter. Petitioner shall appear before respondent No.2 for said purpose on 11th July,2011 and shall file her reply/representation along with necessary Government Resolutions on same date. Thereafter, respondent No.2 to proceed with the matter as per his convenience and pass final order in the matter as early as possible and in any case by 31st August, 2011.With these directions Petition disposed of. No order as to costs. JUDGE JUDGE scd//