Allowed

Seeturam Kashyap v. State of Chhattisgarh and Ors.

Chhattisgarh HC4 Aug 2009WPS/1045/2008

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Chhattisgarh High Court dismissed a writ petition challenging the recovery of excess pension dues. The court held that recovery of Rs. 28,816 was lawful as the petitioner had given an undertaking for payment and the State acted in accordance with natural justice and Supreme Court precedents.

What did the court decide?

The impugned order mandating recovery of Rs. 28,816 was held void and the recovery as pleaded was set aside.

Seeturam Kashyap Vs State of… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Chhattisgarh HC (2009)

¶1

L’ $§ng§a Bamh

¶2

50C¹⁰⁰ , 4:

¶3

SGARH OF^CHHATTI HIGH COURT BEFORE^THEHON’BLE AT BILASPUR 10G.) ({5 OF 2008 - f0 WRIT^{PETITION[S1NO.}

¶4

226 OF THE UNDER ARTICLE \jLrit PETITION SUENCE^OFWRE OF^INDIAFOR1S QONSTITUTION OB DIRECTION OR ORDERS, ORDER OR WRITS. AND FACTS THE UNDER glRECTIONs CIRCUMDTANCES^OFTHECASE. K / S /^oLateShri ' Seeturam Kashyap PETITIONER Kashyap, Chandruram R/o Village— about 64 years, Kunkuri, Tahsil— Naray anpur, District—^{Jashpur(C.G.)}

¶5

VERSUS/

¶6

/ 1]^{StateofChhattisgarh,} Tribal Secretary, Through: ‘Welfare Department,^D.K.S. Bhawan,^Raipur(C.G.) 2 ] The^{JointDirector,Accounts} Treasury^andPension, Bilaspur^(C.G.) ector,^Tribal 3]^{TheAssistantDir} Department, Welfare Raigarh (c.G.). / Officer, Education 4] Block J ashpur District~ Kunkuri, (cc) /3/k/

¶7

mm^W?Ls)l0é{5 @2008

¶8

m m mama?»

¶9

		ma? aka gm ’ amiaa‘m am, mggm w
		£41,.“ Wm. 1i‘fii‘. aigg‘LEca 'I f: @m m’er g mkar Mw;bgy z a 5. ^“wv m3 8m Sanmm Tiwari counsa’ W ths 9%: a“ Shri Awind ^'DubayPL K m. (ewamenES/EtaL m § a
«‘umw	‘ _, N . ‘	W§th “1.? censgm A. a; V the. cciié"ise§ fGr me pariias the matiar it; Chalienge in ih§s peiitéen is ta ‘shv a da ed H.1G2GS6- (Amnexure ^9-2)pagsed ^{by resyandent No.} y ^{mm a wrest an hag} :36 x1 ia d r resavarv c. ah. 28‘8‘25.{3i3 mm ihe pana‘mn sf ^’zha petitianer. Saunas: £or we pe% ‘ ner sum“ L: man he $ r0: messma ma & as me Lianea m pm’ag.apn$ i R; 7.4 anti {‘5 a? me writ m acoam ^”:gw,trey ara net at: adé The mam aoniwtmw or" a)me Jamal far me setumner Is ma? & L arder impugneaf has been pawed WK am forging any agportumty 9f hearing is me pamamer ar {hm u amwm L m £ Rs. 28,u:5 Qf L‘}degediy wad m exae$$ ha3 arreaay ‘ hwen fecevered frsm Ha we perzsbm ^{0f me}pe€£t§0ner. ^{Accordmg ta i'he ccunsaE far me}petEtmner as no oworium‘ty ef heariug wa$ a:f0"dad tv t e geéi’zfaner, in véaw 0f ‘ . .. L m ”Mk ,, , ,, k. w 5x^v.‘ «my-aw.

¶10

XI-HC—78

¶11

mm £W)

¶12

amWW	mm fs@m %‘a'1%mm mwmarzm *J.
	,Ume va‘rieus judgmen’zs cf he Supreme Cam, the same is imipermissibie in Eaw.
	Courisel ‘iar fhe respc ndenis/S’iaie whm'fis ihat ag ’{he pe€§’{}onar ^hm;given ^{an undemgking far}paymeni ^{a? rexces‘a amauni,} there was n0 new ta Essue any fumei’ shew caase mime k) ihe §2ei§iieaer ^and i. a5 ‘zh-e recovery of Rs. 28,816 isa in accmdsmc-e wiih iaw. ii is agpareni éhaf the I*eepondeni/8€ate has compmely by- ( peeeed ’ihe §udicia£ prenwne men’a‘e ef éhe $upreme Cour? wiih respee‘k ta ihe recevery of xcees paymen‘i‘ which caiegOficaH‘y mandates €hat in the ceees £§k in hand, princiee! e? naiurai juetice §e a sm9 qaa aw.
L!’	v I Thee in View 0f abeve feetuaE scenario arid éhe law 3a%t§ dowri i by éhe Apex Ceuré, the mefanti’eetitmn deeer ee te succeed amt! %he i erder meagmed regardéng recevery of Re. 28,836 Ee “able te be set ewe.
	The {eeui-i is 'ihat ihe peti‘xéon 3e aziewee‘ and the eir e$ impugned ie ee’t aeicie. if the deduciien has aiiead‘y‘ been maee {mm ihe pension 0i 4 év‘Lne myeduener, {-'-H ihe same ehcm mil ‘ be eayabie ie em with iriieiee‘? a‘i ihe me ei‘ s per semi pei amum Neediess ’ze say ihai the respeedenis ean aiwey iiake i‘he recourse is Ruie 55 e? ihe i

¶13

3^V I “‘1 “‘ii'fw,; 9,. W3?

¶14

,. Wt 200

¶15

mar 11%? ^arm ; *Wm f3“?
Chhai%iagarh Givii Sewices (P5 accordance wii §aw after fo§low msion) Rwea @275 if sa advised in %mg msic i pfincipies ^{0f nawfal}gasiice. <br>h
No archers a3 tc cost. 8d]- ritinker Diwaker Judge P

¶16

vnw-qyum “

Seeturam Kashyap v. State of Chhattisgarh and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Seeturam Kashyap v. State of Chhattisgarh and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Ku.Samsa Begam Ansari Vs State of Chhattisgarh and Ors.

Arjun Prasad Mishra and Ors. Vs State of Cg and Another

Yogesh Patel Vs State of C.G. and Ors.

Nand Kumar Dubey Vs State of Chhattisgarh and Ors.

Ghasiram Pujari Vs State of Chhattisgarh and Ors.

Madhusudan Das Vaisnav Vs State of Chhattisgarh and Ors.