Dilip Kumar Sharma vs State Of Chhattisgarh
2022 Latest Caselaw 3788 Chatt

                             1




     HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR
                           Order Sheet
                   W.P.(S) No. 3899 of 2022

  Dilip Kumar Sharma S/o Late Shri B. P. Sharma Aged About 63 Years
  R/o. Near Gattani Honda, Champa Road, Nahar Ke Niche, Naila-
  Janjgir, District Janjgir-Champa, Chhattisgarh
                                                             ---- Petitioner
                           Versus

1. State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Department Of Health And
   Family Welfare, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Naya
   Raipur, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh

2. Director, Department Of Health, Mantralaya, Indrawati Bhawan, 3rd
   Floor, Atal Nagar, Naya Raipur, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh

3. Divisional Joint Director Department Of Health Services, Bilaspur,
   District Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh

4. Chief Medical     And    Health   Officer   District   Janjgir-Champa,
   Chhattisgarh

5. Deputy Director Treasury Accounts And Pension, Bilaspur Division,
   District Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh

6. Divisional Joint Director Treasury Accounts And Pension, Bilaspur
   Division, District Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh

7. Civil Surgeon-Cum-Hospital Superintendent District Hospital- Janjgir,
   District Janjgir-Champa, Chhattisgarh


                                                          ---- Respondents

15/06/2022 Shri Sangharsh Pandey, Advocate for the petitioner.

Shri Ali Asgar, Dy. A.G. for the State. Heard on petition as well as on I.A. No. 1 of 2022, an application for grant of interim relief.

It is submitted by counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner working as Head Clerk in the Department of the respondents has superannuated on 30.6.2021. Subsequent to the retirement, a recovery notice has been issued to the petitioner vide Annexure-P/1 on the ground that excess amount has been paid to him. It is further submitted that in view of the judgment of Supreme Court in the case of State of Punjab vs. Rafiq Masih, reported in (2015) 4 SCC 334, no such recovery can be made. Hence, interim relief be granted to the petitioner.

Learned State counsel opposes the submissions and prays for time to file reply.

Time is granted for filing reply to the petition and also to the application for grant of interim relief.

In the meanwhile, it is ordered that the recovery proceedings initiated against the petitioner by the impugned order dated 22.4.2022 shall remain stayed until the next date of hearing.

At this stage, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that he may be granted liberty to file another application for grant of interim relief with respect to release

of pension. Hence, on the basis of this prayer, let this case be listed in the week after next.

Sd/-

(Rajendra Chandra Singh Samant) Judge

Nimmi