High Court Of ChhattisgarhWPS/2099/2013disposed off

Sunaoram Rathore v. State Of Chhattisgarh And ORS.

2021-09-09Hon'Ble Shri Justice Sanjay K. Agrawal3 pages

NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR WPS No. 2099 of 2013 • Sunaoram Rathore S/o Shri Jaitram Rathore Aged About 59 Years R/o Village Signasra, Block Sakti, PS Sakti, District Janjgir Champa, C.G.

---- Petitioner

Versus

1. State of Chhattisgarh, Secretary, Public Health Engineering Department, State of Chhattisgarh, Mantralaya, Naya Raipur, C.G.

2. Executive Engineer Public Health Engineering Department, Block Janjgir & Champa, District Janjgir & Champa, C.G.

3. Joint Director, Funds Accounts and Pension Department, Bilaspur, C.G.

4. Union of India Through Office Of Accountant General, Bairan Bazar, Raipur, C.G.

---- Respondents For Petitioner :- Ms. Diksha Gouraha, Advocate. For State/Respondents No.1 to 3 :- Mr. Animesh Tiwari, Dy. A.G.

Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay K. Agrawal Order On Board

09/09/2021

1. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner has served with a notice dated 14.02.2013 for recovery of Rs.1,00,016/- and he has been asked by the respondent to sign an undertaking saying that the respondent authorities can recover the excess amount of Rs.1,00,016/- from the petitioner and in case of his death, without affording any opportunity of hearing which is in violation of principles of natural justice, as such, it is liable to be set aside.

2. Learned State counsel submits that the only concept has been asked to be recovery of the aforesaid amount, therefore, the petitioner has no case for interference.

3. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and considered their rival submissions and also perused the record with utmost circumspection.

4. Considering the facts it is held clearly that as per the determination by Joint

Director, Treasury and Accounts Rs.1,00,016/- has been paid in excess to the petitioner, therefore, it is liable to be recovered, but it appears that no show cause of notice has been served to the petitioner to explain which is in violation of principles of natural justice, as such, the impugned order dated 14.02.2013 is set aside. However, respondent authority is at liberty to proceed in accordance with law.

5. With the aforesaid observation / direction the instant writ petition stands disposed off.

Sd/- (Sanjay K. Agrawal) Judge Ankit