Allowed

Bhagatram Dansena v. State of Chhattisgarh and Others

Chhattisgarh HC10 Aug 2009WPS/2336/2009

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Writ petition challenging a recovery order of Rs. 21,372 from a retired headmaster's pension. The court set aside the order for violation of natural justice as no hearing was provided and awarded the amount with interest.

What did the court decide?

Impugned recovery order set aside; deduction payable with 6% annual interest; respondents permitted to reopen recovery proceeding after adhering to natural justice.

Bhagatram Dansena Vs State of… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Chhattisgarh HC (2009)

¶1

L^ \7^ 1 ^i^^ /-^

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

¶3

W.P.fS.tNO. ^33C /^009 -^^

l111-^.

PETITIONER:

VERSUS

Dqnse-nq Bhagatram Dadsena S/o Kc^h Aged about 69 years, Retired Headmaster, R/o Village & Post Tamnar, Block Tamnar, District

¶8

Raigarh (C.G.)

¶9

¶10

RESPONDENTS /1. State of Chhattisgarh: Through The Secretaiy, Tribal Welfare Departnient, D.K.S. Bhawan, ^y...'-' Raipur (C.G.) Yo:^--;y ...•••" €SS-"""" ^2. The Joint Director Treasury ^^^^•" Accountant and Pension Bilaspur, District Bilaspur (C.G.) ^ ^y ^3. Assistant Comniissioner Tribal Welfare Department Raigarh District Raigarh (C.G.) ^4. The Principal,

¶11

The Principal, Government Higher Secondary School, Taninar, Block Tamnar, District Raigarh (C.G.)

¶12

WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTK;LE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA FOR ISSUANCE OF WRIT IN NATURE OF MANDAMUS CERTIORARY OR ANY OTHER WRIT OF LIKE NATURE ETC.

¶13

The petitioner most humbly and respectfully begs to subrait as under :

¶14

¶15

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGH AT BILASPUR

¶16

(Hon. Mr. Justjce Pritinker Diwaker) Wrif Petition (S) No.2336 of 2009

PETITIONER

Bhagatram Dansena

VERSUS

RESPONDENTS The State of C.G. & others.

¶21

Shri D.R. Patel, counsel forthe petitioner. Shri Y.S. Thakur, Dy. A.G. for the respondents /State.

¶22

WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226/227 OF THE CONSTITUTSON OF INDIA

¶23

O RD E R

¶24

(10.08.2009)

¶25

in the instant petition the petitioner is seeking the following

¶26

relief(s):

¶27

"10(1)That it is therefore prayed that thjs Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to call for the entire records ofthe petitioner case..

¶28

1—

¶29

(ii) That it is therefore prayed that this Hon'bfe Court may kincfly be pleasecf to setaside/quashed the order dated 27.9.2006 and further kindly be directed the order to the respondents to not deduct the amount of Rs. 21.372/- from the petftioner.

¶30

(iii) That it is therefore prayed that thss Hon'ble Court may Mndly be pleased to direct the respondents to pay recovered amount with interest to the petitioner.

¶31

(iv) Any other relief, which may be deemed, fit by thls Hon'ble Courtjust and proper !n the facts and circumstances of the case may also be provided !n favour of the petitioner."

¶32

Bn'ef facts of the case are that the petitioner was an empioyee of School Education Department who retired from the post of head

¶33

^^^^f-:^ ^. ,^.^€. 1 ."^/ ^^::'--^"'

¶34

—2.—

¶35

master on 30.4.2002. By the order impugned dated 27.9.2006 recovery of Rs. 21,372 to be effected from the petitioner has been ordered by respondent No.2.

¶36

Contention of the petitioner is that fhe order impugned regarding recovery has been passed without giving any opportunfty of hearing to the petitioner and without disclosing the fact as to on what basis the recovery is sought to be made. He placed retiance on the decisions of the Supreme Court in the matter of Sahib Ram Vs. State of Harvana &othersL& in the matter of Purshottam Lal Das & others Vs. State of Bihar & others2. In these two decisions it hasbeen held by the Supreme Court that if the excess payment is made due to the wrong construction of relevant order by the authority concerned without any misrepresentation on the part of the empioyee, no recovery can be made from the employee and if recovery is already made, it is liable to be restrained.

¶37

Counsel for the respondents/State submits that State has every right to recover the excess payment as per rule 65 of the Chhattisgarh Civil Services Pensions Rules, 1976. He however fairly submits that in this case no opportunity was given to the petitioner in respect of the recovery sought to be made from him.

¶38

Heard counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record and the judgments of the Supreme Court dted above.

¶39

It is an admitted position that the petittoner was not afforded any opportunity of hearing before passing the order impugned. Thus, this Court is of the opinion that the order dated 27.9.2006 (Annexure P-2), is liable to the set aside so far as it relates to recovery of amount of Rs.21,372.

¶40

Thus in view of above factual scenario and the law laid down by the Apex Court, the instant petition deservesto succeed and the order impugned dated 27.9.2006 regarding recovery of Rs. 21,372 is liable to be set aside.

¶41

1 1995 Supp. (l) SCC 18 2 (2006)118cc 492

¶42

.-•2-

¶43

^vu ^-.^. II^{N%®^.} 1"

¶44

^-"

¶45

The result is that the petition is allowed and the order impugned is set aside. If the deduction has already been made from the pension of the petitioner, the same shall be payable to him with interest at the rate of 6 per cent per annum. Needless to say that the respondents can alwaystake the recourse to Rule 65 of the Chhattisgarh CMI Services (Pension) Rules, 1976 jf so advised in accordance with law after foflowing basic principles of natural justice.

¶46

Resultantly, petition succeeds.

¶47

Sd/Pritinker Diwaker Judge

¶48

Bhagatram Dansena v. State of Chhattisgarh and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Bhagatram Dansena v. State of Chhattisgarh and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Soniya Bai Vs State of Chhattisgarh and Ors.

B.L. Dewangan Vs State of Chhattisgarh and Ors.

Prithvi Sen Tigga Vs State of Chhattisgarh and Ors.

Devendra Kumar Dubey Vs State of Chhattisgarh and Ors.

Deo Ram Sinha Vs State of Chhattisgarh and Ors.

Ashwani Kumar Pandey Vs State