IMPORTANT POINT
The main legal point established in the judgment is that recovery of government dues from a retiring government servant must be based on proper documentation and should adhere to the principles outlined in Rule 65 of the Pension Rules 1976.

ORDER :

1. By way of the instant petition, the petitioner is challenging the legality of the demand notice issued to the petitioner vide letter dated 28.12.2016 (Annexure P/1) whereby the petitioner was directed to deposit a sum of Rs.7,43,956/- within a period of 7 days. It has further been directed to the petitioner to give undertaking/consent for recovery of the aforesaid amount from the amount of gratuity so as to finalize the gratuity amount.

2. Brief facts of the case as mentioned in the petition, are that the petitioner has retired as Assistant Director Agriculture, officiating at the office Deputy Director Korba on attaining the age of superannuation vide order dated 29.01.2016 (Annexure P/3). Respondent No.3 further issued letter dated 23.02.2016 (Annexure P/4) for payment of 90% of pension with dearness allowances payable time to time under Rule 74 of Civil Pension Rule 1976 till the final fixation of the pension. The said letter was also addressed to respondent No.4. Despite making several representations, respondent No.4 did not inform about any dues outstanding against the petitioner and deliberately decline to issue no dues certificate to him.

3. As the respondent department failed to release the retiral dues of the petitioner therefore, the petitioner had no option except to approach before this Court for redressal of his grievances and he filed writ petition i.e. W.P.S. No. 5830/2016 pleading malafide action of respondent No.4 in delaying the payment of retiral dues and the same was disposed of with a direction to consider the representation within 45 days vide order dated 24.10.2016. Respondent No.4 inspite of issuing no dues certificate in favour of petitioner, issued the details of dues outstanding against him during his service period as per Annexure P/2 dated 23.09.2016.

4. As per Annexure P/6 dated 18.11.2016, respondent No.5 denied the issuance of letter against the petitioner with regard to recovery amount under National Employment Guarantee Scheme. As per Annexure P/7 dated 24.05.2016 and Annexure P/8 dated 22.12.2015, balance amount was directed to be recovered from the Deputy Director, the Senior Agriculture Extension Officer and from J.S. Markam, Rural Agriculture Officer. As per Annexure P/9, it has been certified by Senior Agricultural Officer, Katghora, District- Korba that 7 quintal gold certified paddy amounting to Rs.4067/- as mentioned in the letter dated 23.09.2016 as item No.2, has been deposited in Seed Corporation Khokhsa and the remaining quintal of seeds that is 5 quintal has been utilized under the Annapurna planning for the year 2008-09. Recovery of difference amount of exchange of paddy during the period 2002- 2005, has also been deposited through challan and the copy of the challan has been sent to the office of respondent No.4. Thus, the whole dues amount shown against the petitioner was recovered. Therefore, the demand notice is baseless and was issued only for delaying the payment of retiral dues of the petitioner. The demand notice issued to the petitioner was contradicted by the department and the liabilities to pay the same have been ascertained, therefore the demand notice is illegal and liable to be quashed. Hence, the petition for following reliefs:-

10.1. The Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue a writ of certiorari directing to quash the demand notice dated 28.12.2016 as per Annexure P-1.

10.2. The Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue any writ or direction or order as deem fit in the interest of justice.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was posted as Assistant Director, Agriculture and he retired from service on attaining the age of superannuation on 31.01.2016 (Annexure P/3) and the impugned recovery notice has been issued after almost 11 years of his retirement from service which is illegal, Improper and contrary to the law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court. The details of total recoverable amount in different heads were men