High Court Of ChhattisgarhWPS/2071/2017allowed

Blasiyus Tirkey v. State Of Chhattisgarh

2017-05-02Hon'Ble Shri Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra2 pages

NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR WPS No. 2071 of 2017 • Blasiyus Tirkey S/o Shri Bhukha Tirkey, Aged About 63 Years R/o Village Ratba, Post + Thana Bagicha, Tahsil Bagicha, District Jashpur, (Chhattisgarh).

---- Petitioner

Versus

1. State of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, School Education Department, Mahanadi Bhawan, New Raipur (Chhattisgarh).

2. The District Education Officer, Jashpur District Jashpur (Chhattisgarh).

3. The Block Education Officer, Bagicha, District Jashpur (Chhattisgarh).

4. The Joint Director, Treasury, Account & Pension, Ambikapur District Sarguja (Chhattisgarh).

---- Respondents For Petitioner :

Shri Manoj Chauhan, Advocate For Respondents-State :

Shri Rajendra Tripathi, PL for the State Hon'ble Shri Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra Order On Board 02/05/2017

1. The present petition has been filed assailing the order dated 06.05.2016 (Annexure P-1) whereby the respondent Authorities have recovered an amount of Rs.46778/- as excess payment made to the petitioner while he was in service.

2. Petitioner was working as Headmaster at Govt. Middle School, Gurmhakona, Block Bagicha, District Jashpur (CG), retired on 31.03.2016. Thereafter, the pension admissible to the petitioner has been settled vide Annexure P-1, however, an amount of Rs.46778/- has been recovered showing the same as paid in excess to the petitioner while he was in

service.

3. Counsel for the petitioner submits that the impugned order of recovery is bad in law particularly in the light of the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of State of Punjab and others etc. Vs. Rafiq Masih (White Washer) etc. reported in 2015 AIR SCW 501. He submits that the issue involved in the present case has already been adjudicated upon by this Court in a series of writ petitions decided on 23.02.2017, the lead case being Writ Petition (S) No. 1283 of 2016.

4. State counsel on due verification submits that the facts of the present case are also similar to that of the bunch of writ petitions decided by this Court on 23.02.2017 and the present petition may be disposed on on the ground of parity.

5. In view of the same, the present writ petition also on the ground of parity deserves to be and is accordingly allowed. The impugned order of recovery dated 06.05.2016 (Annexure P-1) is held to be bad in law and is accordingly set aside. It is ordered that the amount of recovery, if any recovered, shall be refunded to the petitioner forthwith.

Sd/- Judge Prashant Kumar Mishra Ashu