Smt. Bhagwantin Bai vs State Of Chhattisgarh
2025 Latest Caselaw 227 Chatt

Chattisgarh High Court

Smt. Bhagwantin Bai vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 9 May, 2025

        Digitally
        signed by
        SOURABH
SOURABH BHILWAR
BHILWAR Date:
        2025.05.12
        11:13:18
        +0530
                                                        1/3




                              HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

                                               WPS No. 3373 of 2025

                           SMT. BHAGWANTIN BAI versus STATE OF CHHATTISGARH
                                                  Order on Board


                     09/05/2025
                                      Mr. Ajay Shrivastava, Advocate for the petitioner.

                                      Mr. Akhilesh Kumar, Govt. Advocate for the
                                  respondents/ State.

Mr. Anumeh Shrivastava, Advocate for the respondent/ Bank.

Heard.

Issue notice to the respondents.

Mr. Akhilesh Kumar, Govt. Advocate would accept notice on behalf of the State/ Respondents No.1 to 3 and Mr. Anumeh Shrivastava, Advocate would accept notice on behalf of the Bank/ Respondents No.4 and are granted three weeks' time to file reply.

In view of the above, process fee need not be paid.

Also heard on I. A. No.01/2025, an application for grant of interim relief/Stay.

By the present writ petition, the petitioner, who is widow of late Shri Tilak Ram Dewangan who was a government employe, is seeking quashment of impugned recovery order dated 05/04/2025 (Annexure P/1).

Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is receiving pension after the death of her husband, since 2009. Presently vide impugned order Annexure P/1, the respondent bank has directed to recover excess payment from the petitioner amounting to Rs.11,57,424/- without affording any opportunity of hearing to her and the said impugned order has been issued all of a sudden without issuance of any show cause notice to the petitioner. In support of his contention, learned counsel would place reliance upon the judgment passed by the Division Bench of this Court in WA No.18/2022 and submits that the impugned recovery order is absolutely illegal and the same has been passed in violation of principles of natural justice.

I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the documents.

In view of the above facts and circumstances of the case, considering the grievance of the petitioner and particularly considering the fact that the recovery order has been issued to the petitioner without affording any

opportunity of hearing and no notice has been issued before issuance of recovery order, purely as an interim measure, the effect and operation of the impugned recovery order dated 05/04/2025 passed by the respondent authorities/ Bank, shall remain stayed till the next date of hearing.

Accordingly, I.A. No.01/2025 stands disposed of.

List this case after three weeks.

Sd/-

(BIBHU DATTA GURU) Judge

$. Bhilwar