AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Shree Chandrashekhar, J.—Referring to paragraph no.11 of the writ petition, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in the previous writ proceeding vide W.P.(S) No. 1267 of 2003, the petitioner was one of the applicants. The said writ petition was disposed of on 15.7.2008 in the following terms:
"In view of the aforesaid facts, the impugned orders issued by the respondents as contained in Annexures 6 to 12 are hereby quashed. The respondents, if necessary, may make a fresh demand from the petitioners, but before doing that, they shall give an opportunity of hearing to the petitioners by way of notice giving therein details of the basis of computation and of the amounts purported to have been paid in excess to the petitioners."
The grievance of the petitioner is that in spite of a direction issued by this Court, the respondents neither issued a fresh demand nor refunded the alleged excess amount which was deducted from the pension of the petitioner and others.
Ms. Bharti Singh, the learned J.C. to Sr. S.C.-III, however, refers to the stand taken by the State in W.P.(S) No.1267 of 2003 and contends that the petitioner and others, who were parties in the previous writ proceeding, had given undertaking to refund excess payment, if any, made to them.
A perusal of order dated 15.7.2008 passed in W.P. (S) No.1267 of 2003 discloses that the respondents had deducted the alleged excess amount without giving show-cause notice to the petitioner and others. Accordingly, the writ Court permitted the respondents to raise fresh demand, however, after issuing notice to the petitioner.
In the aforesaid facts, I am of the opinion that the instant writ petition can be disposed of without taking counter-affidavit from the State. In terms of order dated 15.7.2008, the respondents are required to refund the excess amount which was recovered from the pension of the petitioner or to make fresh demand. Accordingly, respondent no.3 is directed to comply with order dated 15.7.2008 passed in W.P.(S) No.1267 of 2003, within a period of six weeks, failing which a proceeding under the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 shall be initiated against respondent no.3.
Learned counsel for the petitioner to intimate the Registry in this regard.