RIZINA PAIKRA Vs. STATE OF CHHATTISGARH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The challenge in the present writ petition is to action on the part of the respondents for recovering the amount of 3,27,992/- from the gratuity amount payable to the husband of the petitioner on his retirement.

(2.) Facts of the case is that husband of the petitioner No. 1 was working under the respondents as Agriculture Extension Officer and died in harness on 10/12/2013 while working with the respondents. After death of the husband of the petitioner No. 1 the respondents while settling the retiral dues issued Annexure P-2 dated 23/08/2014 whereby it is reflected that respondents have found that there were certain alleged excess payment made to the husband of the petitioner (hereinafter referred as the deceased employee) to the tune of Rs. 3,27,992/-.

(3.) Contention of the petitioner is that documents enclosed along with the writ petition would reveal that this amount of 3,27,992/- has since been adjusted against the gratuity amount that was payable to the petitioner. Counsel for the petitioners at this juncture submit that except for the said deductions oll other dues have been settled. He contends that the said recovery made by the department is totally illegal and impermissible under law in as much as the recovery could not have been made from the dues payable to the petitioner on the death of deceased employee. Counsel for the petitioner submits that there has been no specific order of recovery passed by the respondents. It is only while settling the dues that they have passed an order of adjusting from the retiral dues without there being a formal order in this regard and on this ground also the impugned action is bad in law. Further contention of the petitioner is that perusal of Annexure P-2 & P-3 does not disclose the exact period during which the alleged excess payment was made to the deceased without which the impugned action becomes perse illlegal. He has further contended that it is not the case of the respondent State that the said alleged excess payment was paid to the deceased on account of any false representation or fraud played by the deceased employee. For all the aforesaid reasons the petitioner contended that the impugned action bad in law and prayed for refund of the said amount to the petitioners.