^\^ Petitioner ResRQndente HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGWW: BILASPUR Writ PeUtion (S) No. 3577 of 2007 Panchram Mishra, son of Shri Chhedilai Mishra, aged about 62, R/o. indira Vihar Bandhauva para Sarkanda near Satbahaniya temple, Bilaspur (CG), retired Forester, Division office, Bilaspur (CG). Versus 1) The State of ChhaUsgarh tftrough the Secretary, Dspartment of Forest, Secretariat, D.K.S.Buiiding, Raipur (CG). 2) The District Forest Officer (D.F.C.) Bilaspur, Forest Division, Bitaspur (CG). 3) The Joint Director, Treasuries, Account and Pension, Biiaspur Divsiion, Bilaspur it Petition under Articte 226 oftheConstitution oflndia.) SB: Hon'ble Bflr. Satish K. Agnihotri, J. Present Shri Sameer Behar, counsel for the petitioner. Shri Yashwant Singh Thakur, Govt Advocate for ttie State. ORAL ORDER (Passed on 7.4-2008) With consent of learned counsel for the parttes, the matter is heard finallv. 2) By this petition, the petitioner has prayed for a suitable writ or direction to quash the orders dated 19-10-2005 and 3-1-20W (Annexures P/1 & P/2) passed by the respondent No.2 ciirecting for recovery of a sum of Rs. 47,466/- from the retiral dues of the petitioner, because this amount was wrongiy paid to the petitioner owing to incorrect fixation of saiary. 3) The brief facts, in nutshell, are that e pdtioner was initiaity appointed as Forest Guard on 13-7-1964. Thereafter, the petitioner was •^w /1^- promoted to the post of Forester on 8-11-1976. The petitioner, whiie working as Forester, Bitaspur Division Office, Bilaspur, retired on attaining ttie age of superannuation from the service on 30-9-2005 The petitioner received communications dated 19-10-2005 and 3-1-2006, whereby it was directed that a sum of Rs.47,466/- be deducted from the pensionary benefite. 4) The petitioner has fiied this petition praying that ttie impugned orders dated 19-10-2005 & 3-1-2006 (Annexures Pl 1 and P/2) deducting a sum of Rs. 47.466/- from the pensionary benefits of the petitioner without affording an opportunity of hearing to put forward case of the petiUoner, to the petttioner is illegal, arbitrary and unreasonabte. 5) Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the case of the petitioner is squarety covered by the order dated 17-11-20CB passed by this Court in the matter of VMyadhar Tmari Vs. The State of ChhaWsgarh and othevs {2006 (1) MPHT fCG) 108} Leamed counsel further submits that this petition may be disposed of in fte same terms. 6) Leamed counsel appearing for the State/rsspondente does not dispute the submissions made by learned counsei appearing for the petitioner and has no objection, if this pettion is disposed of in the same terms. 7) The petition is accordingly aliowed in the same terms i.e., the impugned orders dated 19-10-2005 and 3-1-2C06 direcBng rscovery of the amount allegediy paid to the petitioner in excess, are hereby quashed. The petitioner is entiUed to fuli pensionary benefits wthout any deduction. The amount so deducted be paid to the petitioner with simpie interest. However, iiberty is reserved to the respondents, if so advised, to take appropriate fi '"^ t; '•:.. l.fis ^•^^5ri-:a^n^ ^'^*ss%.. .f' €^ "% \ ^;'y^^.-..^^.. ^. i ^ lJ .••f" '"k ^..--•Si stepsaftercompfying RuteSSofthe. asto costs. 3 ,"".'"""'*" •"Mur"""*.».c»<«^»», '°••S«..c«(?.„„,,^,^ ^^- Sd/- . Satish K.Agnihotri . Judge ; ¥• +i