KALAM PRASAD KASHYAP Vs. STATE OF CHHATTISGARH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The challenge in the present writ petition is to the action on the part of the respondents in passing an order of recovery on 19.02.2019 recovering an amount of Rs.1,66,887/- from the retiral dues payable to the petitioner.

(2.) The brief facts relevant for adjudication of the writ petition are that the petitioner working as an ASI under the respondents retired from service w.e.f. 31.01.2019. After his retirement from service, the respondents are said to have recovered an amount of Rs.1,66,887/- from the retiral dues that the petitioner was entitled for. The petitioner was never served with a notice before the recovery order was passed. The petitioner subsequently, moved an application under RTI and obtained information Annexure P-2 whereby he has been informed that he was paid certain excess amount on account of erroneous fixation of pay w.e.f. 01.01.1996 onwards. This amount was detected by the respondents at the time of his retirement i.e. after more than 23 years from the date the initial error crept in According to the petitioner, the said recovery is totally impermissible under law in the light of the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of "State of Punjab and others etc. vs. Rafiq Masih(White Washer) etc." reported in 2015 AIR SCW 501. It is the contention of the counsel for the petitioner that the impugned order is also bad for the reason that the same has been issued without affording any opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and as such it is violative of the principles of natural justice.

(3.) State counsel, on the contrary justifying the action on the part of the respondents, submits that after the petitioner has retired on 31.01.2019, when his settlement was being done and at that time it was detected that the petitioner has been paid certain excess amount by way of erroneous fixation of pay w.e.f. 01.01.1996 and then it was calculated and found that the petitioner was paid an amount of Rs.1,66,887 in excess what he was otherwise entitled for. It is this amount which was being recovered from the retiral dues payable to the petitioner and therefore the same cannot be said to be in any manner bad in law.