ORDER : Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the Respondent - Bihar State Food and Civil Supplies Corporation Ltd. The petitioner an employee of Bihar State Food and Civil Supplies Corporation Ltd. has retired on 30th April, 2010, while working on the post of Incharge District Manager at Ranchi Office. After his retirement, when the post retirement dues were being withheld upon certain orders issued for recovery of the amount against him, he has approached this Court in the present writ application with the following prayers: (a) For quashing of an order dated 12th May, 2010 issued by the respondent no. 2, Chief of Claim,Bihar State Food and Civil Supplies Corporation Ltd., Patna, whereunder, a sum of Rs. 3.83.360.65 is sought to be recovered towards interest and cost of suit from the petitioner's salary and his retiral benefits; (b) For payment of admissible retiral benefits such as: (i) Earned Leave in revised pay scale; (ii) Gratuity in revised pay scale; (iii) Arrears of salary for the period April, 1997 to December, 2005 on account of 5th Pay Revision and (iv) Arrears of salary for the period April 2007 to April, 2010 on account of 6th Pay Revision and (c) Further prayer has been made to direct the Respondent-Corporation to pay the amount of Rs. 3.50 Lakhs under the head of gratuity without recovery of an alleged sum of Rs. 2,33,361 towards due interest as also for payment of earned leave amount totaling Rs. 2,67,170/2. without resorting to any recovery of Rs. 1.50 Lakhs towards alleged due interest. 3. In short, it is the case of the petitioner that earlier during his service career on account of certain shortage found in a Godown where he was posted as Assistant Manager, the RespondentCorporation instituted a Money Suit No. 20 of 1993 before the Court of SubJudge, Dhanbad which was decreed vide judgment dated 30th November, 2000, Annexure1 in their favour for recovery of sum of Rs. 2,15,708.80/with pendente lite interest @ 12% per annum. It was indicated therein that the amount already deposited by the petitioner and deducted from his salary shall be adjusted. By referring to Annexure3, office order dated 13th September, 2004, it is stated that an amount in excess was recovered as interest from the petitioner and therefore the Director (Administration) had stopped any further recovery. It was indicated therein that the amount already deposited by the petitioner and deducted from his salary shall be adjusted. By referring to Annexure3, office order dated 13th September, 2004, it is stated that an amount in excess was recovered as interest from the petitioner and therefore the Director (Administration) had stopped any further recovery. Despite that after his retirement the respondent by issuance of the impugned order at Annexure6 have chosen to recover an amount of Rs. 3,83,360.65 allegedly as shortage was found during different periods of service of the petitioner in different districts along with interest and cost of the suit. This, according to the petitioner, includes the amount decreed apart from the other amount of loss and damage allegedly found against the petitioner for his posting in other district as per categorical statements made at paragraph 8 of the counter affidavit. It is submitted that the respondents after his retirement, without resorting to any procedure established in law or under any service rules and without following the principle of natural justice, have chosen to recover the said amount which is unsustainable in law as well on facts. It is submitted that the amount decreed against the petitioner stands recovered against his salary during his service period and any other amount which is alleged to be recoverable can only be recovered in accordance with law after a procedure laid down under the service rules of the organization governing the petitioner's case and after due notice and show cause to the petitioner. The proposed action of the respondents in recovering the aforesaid amount is unsustainable and he is entitled to the payment of admissible retiral dues. 4. Learned counsel for the Respondent-Corporation relies upon the contents of the counter affidavit and has submitted that for various periods of the petitioner's service in different districts, an amount of Rs. 4,89,662.76 was found to be recoverable which includes interest amount as well. The statements made at para 8 of the counter affidavit are quoted hereunder: “That it is stated and submitted that the respondent authority has calculated the loss/damage amount in the light of judgment and decree dated 30.11.2000 and found total amount Rs. 2,15,708.80 with interest @ 12% p.a and found loss and damage amount on other District against the petitioner and total dues/recoverable amount of Rs. 4,89.662.76. But the respondent authority has adjusted the excess amount of Rs. 2,15,708.80 with interest @ 12% p.a and found loss and damage amount on other District against the petitioner and total dues/recoverable amount of Rs. 4,89.662.76. But the respondent authority has adjusted the excess amount of Rs. 62.878.81 and interest amount of Rs. 50,000/and total amount of Rs. 1,12,878.81 has already adjusted in the aforesaid amount and total recoverable amount of Rs. 3.76,783.95 with cost Rs. 6576.70 and total amount of Rs. 3,83,360.65. The respondent authority has issued a letter to District Manager, S.F.C., Ranchi for recovery of the said due amount against the petitioner vide letter no. 4368 dated 12.5.2010 (Annexure6 to the writ application.)” 5. However, learned counsel for the Respondent-Corporation is not able to dispute that the aforesaid amount now being sought to be recovered is being done without any findings recorded by the respondent organization upon due service of notice and show cause to him though he has retired in April, 2010 itself. 6. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and upon perusal of the relevant materials on record, it appears that no proceedings have been initiated against the petitioner for recovery of the alleged amount after his retirement and no notice or show cause has either been issued upon him before issuance of the impugned order dated 12th May, 2010. The petitioner has admittedly retired on 30th April, 2010 from the service of the Respondent-Corporation. Whether the amount decreed against the petitioner in the Money Suit No. 20 of 1993 earlier along with interest has been recovered or not is a question of fact, which is discernible upon scrutiny of the relevant materials which are available under the respondent organization in respect of the petitioner's service. However, if any further amount is recoverable apart from the decreed amount, the respondents were obliged to undertake an exercise as is permissible in law and after due notice to the petitioner. This does not seem to have been followed in the present case though they have issued the impugned order for recovery of the alleged amount in question. The stand of the respondent as reflected in the counter affidavit also do not show that any procedure has been followed before undertaking such an exercise. 7. This does not seem to have been followed in the present case though they have issued the impugned order for recovery of the alleged amount in question. The stand of the respondent as reflected in the counter affidavit also do not show that any procedure has been followed before undertaking such an exercise. 7. In such circumstances, the writ petition is being disposed of by directing the concerned respondents authorities of the Bihar State Food and Civil Supplies Corporation to pay the admissible post retiral dues of the petitioner after giving him due opportunity of hearing and show cause and after coming to an informed decision on the question of recovery of the said amount, in accordance with law. 8. Let such an exercise be undertaken by the respondent after due notice to the petitioner within a period of 16 weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. 9. In view of the aforesaid reasons recorded hereinabove, the impugned order dated 12th May, 2010 is quashed. The writ petition is accordingly allowed in the aforesaid manner.