1 2025:CGHC:21151 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 3313 of 2025 1 - Dinesh Kumar Sahu S/o Late Shri Shyam Lal Sahu Aged About 68 Years R/o D-4, Anupam Nagar, Near Tv Tower, Raipur, C.G.- 492004 ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Chief Secretary, Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh 492002 2 - Principal Secretary Forest Department, Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh 492002 3 - Under Secretary Department Of Forest And Climate Change State Of Chhattisgarh Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh 492002 4 - Head Of Forest Department Of Chhattisgarh State Head Of Forest Force And Principle Chief Conservator Of Forest, Chhattisgarh State, Aranya Bhawan, Atal Nagar, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh 492002 5 - Divisional Forest Officer Bijapur Forest Division, District Bijapur, C.G. AMARDEEP CHOUBEY Digitally signed by AMARDEEP CHOUBEY Date: 2025.05.09 16:39:42 +0530 2 6 - Chief Conservator of Forest Forest Department Raipur, Vip Colony, Opposite Ashoka Ratan Towers, Raipur, C.G. 492004 ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Vivek Chopda, Advocate. For Respondents/State : Mr. Sabyasachi Choubey, Panel Lawyer Hon’ble Shri Bibhu Datta Guru, Judge Order on Board 08/05/2025 1. By the present writ petition, the petitioner is seeking a direction towards the respondent authorities to pay the withheld retirement dues of the petitioner. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner questioned the order Annexure P-1 by which a sum of Rs.17,530/- has been directed to be recovered from the petitioner, but learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the entire pension has been withheld and the petitioner is not getting anything so far as pension is concerned. He further submits that the order of recovery by departmental enquiry which was passed vide order dated 12/12/2024 is under challenge in an appeal before the appellate authority, however, in spite of the said pendency of the appeal before the appellate authority, the respondents have withheld the pension amount towards the petitioner. 3. Learned counsel for the respondent/State submits that the amount of recovery which is under challenge in the present writ petition, the order is only to recover the amount of Rs.17,530/-, however, there is no order to withheld the entire amount of 3 pension. 4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties, perused the impugned order Annexure P-1, by which, a direction has been issued by the D.F.O. for recovery of amount of Rs. 17,530/- from the pension of the petitioner. 5. Having considered the facts and circumstances of the case, the writ petition is disposed of with an observation that after deducting Rs.17,530/-, the rest part of the pension be released to the petitioner which is alleged to be not received by the petitioner since last two months. 6. With the aforesaid observation and direction, the writ petition stands disposed of. SD/- (Bibhu Datta Guru) Judge Amardeep