Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:24986 Court No. - 3 Case :- WRIT - A No. - 4629 of 2025 Petitioner :- Smt. Indra Butan Respondent :- U.P. Power Corporation Ltd. , Thru. Chairman Lucknow And 2 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Ninnie Shrivastava,Mukul Misra,Sushma Shukla Counsel for Respondent :- Neerav Chitravanshi,C.S.C. Hon'ble Rajesh Singh Chauhan,J. 1. Heard Ms. Ninni Srivastava, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri R.K. Mishra, learned Addl. C.S.C. for the opposite party no. 3 and Sri Neeraj Chaurasiya has accepted notice on behalf of opposite parties no. 1 and 2. 2. Ms. Ninni Srivastava has filed amendment application bearing I.A. No. 2 of 2025, same is taken on record. 3. Amendment application is allowed. 4. Let the necessary amendment be carried out during the course of the day. 5. Attention has been drawn towards the Annexure no. 5 which is now impugned which has been issued by the Treasury Officer, Ghaziabad addressing to the petitioner indicating therein that due to clerical mistake the amount of revised family pension which should be Rs. 43260/- has been indicated as Rs. 53260/- and on the basis of aforesaid amount of Rs. 53260/- she has been paid the arrears of revised family pension w.e.f. 1.1.2016 to 31.5.2019. Just after knowing the aforesaid fact the necessary exercise has been undertaken by the Chief Treasury Officer, Ghaziabad to ascertain as to what excess amount has been paid to her and the fact emerged that the petitioner has been paid excess amount of Rs. 758019/-. Therefore, by means of impugned order dated 1.1.2024 the aforesaid excess amount has been directed to be recovered from the family pension of the petitioner and a sum of Rs. 23688/- has been directed to be recovered from the petitioner from her family pension since November, 2022 till July, 2025. 6. Ms. Ninni Srivastava has stated that the aforesaid impugned order has been issued on 1.1.2024 but the period of recovery has been indicated from November, 2022 but no order to that effect has been given to the petitioner prior to November, 2022. The aforesaid information has been firstly provided to the petitioner on 1.1.2024. 7. Law is trite on the point that if any amount is to be recovered from a person for any reason, at least an opportunity of hearing should be provided to such person. Any show cause notice or explanation could have been called but the impugned order is absolutely silent on the aforesaid point. As a matter of fact the impugned order dated 1.1.2024 straightway says that the aforesaid amount would be recovered from her w.e.f. November, 2022 to July, 2025. 8. Therefore, if the aforesaid impugned order is tested on the touchstone of the principles of natural justice which is mandatory in such circumstances, then this order appears to be no-nest in the eyes of law and that error is apparent on the face of the record. Had there any opportunity been provided to the petitioner before November, 2022 or before passing impugned order dated 1.1.2024 the recital to this effect must have been indicated in the impugned order but there is no recital to this effect in the impugned order. 9. Learned counsel for the U.P. Power Corporation has stated that he has no concern with the impugned order dated 1.1.2024 as the recovery has not been made pursuant to any letter being issued by the U.P. Power Corporation. Sri R.K. Mishra, learned Addl. C.S.C. has stated that the aforesaid order has been passed by the Chief Treasury Officer, Ghaziabad. 10. Be that as it may, since the petitioner is a widow old lady of 81 years and has been getting her family pension and if any excess amount was paid to the petitioner due to any clerical error etc. she should have been given an opportunity of hearing by issuing a show cause notice to defend but undoubtedly the impugned recovery has started since November, 2022 even without providing any formal order to that effect before November, 2022 and this information has been given to the petitioner by means of impugned order dated 1.1.2024, again without seeking any explanation from the petitioner or affording her an opportunity of hearing. 11. Since, this is a case where there is an error apparent in the impugned order dated 1.1.2024, therefore, I do not find it proper to provide any time to opposite party no. 3 i.e. Treasury Officer, Ghaziabad, to file counter affidavit. Hence, I hereby dispose of this petition finally at the admission stage setting aside / quashing the impugned order dated 1.1.2024 passed by the Chief Treasury Officer, Ghaziabad on the aforesaid ground alone, remanding back the issue to the Chief Treasury Officer, Ghaziabad to pass a fresh order, if it is so needed, strictly in accordance with law by affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. 12. If the Chief Treasury Officer, Ghaziabad proposed to pass any appropriate order in terms of the order of this Court, same may be passed with expedition preferably within a period of two months. 13. Since the impugned order dated 1.1.2024 has been set aside, therefore, no further recovery shall be executed from the petitioner and if the explanation fo the petitioner is found suitable, she will be given the arrears of family pension w.e.f. November, 2022 till date. 14. Writ petition is allowed in view of the aforesaid terms. . [Rajesh Singh Chauhan, J.] Order Date :- 1.5.2025 Om Digitally signed by :- OM PRAKASH MISHRA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench