CourtKutchehry.com
High CourtsSingle Bench

Smt. Sita Devi vs State of Jharkhand and Others

Jharkhand High Court · Decided on 19 February 2008 · Citation: (2008) 2 JCR 702a

HON’BLE JUDGES
R.K. Merathia, J
Ask AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

No AI summary yet

Generate an eight-section analysis of this judgment — facts, issues, reasoning, ratio and a plain-language gist.

Judgment

6 paragraphs · 339 words

R.K. Merathia, J.—The petitioner has challenged the order dated 19.1.2001 under which a sum of Rs. 1,72,177/- has been recovered on account of the excess : payment made to the petitioner''s husband, as he did not pass Hindi Noting and Darting Examination during his service tenure.

2.

It is submitted by Mr. Jawahar Prasad, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner that the petitioner''s husband retired from service on 28.2.2001 and thereafter he died on 2.1.2006. It is further submitted that in the subsequent District Order No. 64 of 2005 it was ordered that the said order was wrongly passed as the petitioner''s husband had already the said Hindi Noting and Drafting examination. It is further submitted passed that again on 24.11.2005 (Annexure-5) it was ordered that deduction may not be made but in spite of that, the said deduction has been made. It is further submitted that in view of the Full Bench decision of this Court in the case of State of Jharkhand and Ors. v. Padmalochan Kalindi and Anr. 2007 (4) JLJR 451, no recover can be made without giving opportunity of hearing or without initiating any proceeding under Rule 43(b) of the Pension Rules, but neither any opportunity of-hearing was given to the petitioner''s husband nor any proceeding was initiated against him.

3.

Counsel for the State submitted that the said District Order No. 64 of 2005 was revoked on 11.1.2005 and District Order Nos. 61 of 2000 and 37 of 2001 were maintained by District Order No. 1 of 2006 (Annexure-C).

4.

Admittedly before recovery of the aforesaid amount, neither any opportunity of hearing was given to the husband of the petitioner nor any proceeding under Rule 43(b) of the Pension Rules was initiated against him.

5.

In the circumstances, the respondents are directed to return the said amount of Rs. 1,72,177.00 to the petitioner within four weeks from the date of receipt/ production of a copy of this order.

6.

With these observations and directions, this writ petition is disposed of. However, no costs.