Madhya Pradesh High Court
Satish Vishwakarma vs State Of M.P. on 1 April, 2021
Author: Vivek Rusia
- : 1 :-
W.P. No.1542/2021
HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH : BENCH AT INDORE
(SINGLE BENCH : HON. Mr. JUSTICE VIVEK RUSIA)
W.P. No. 1542 of 2021
(Satish Vishwakarma s/o. Late Shri Shyamlal Vishwakarma V/s. State
of M.P. & others)
Indore, dated : 01.04.2021
Shri Mohd. Iqbal Khan, learned counsel for the petitioner.
Shri Pradyumna Kibe, learned Panel Advocate for the
respondents/State.
With the consent of learned counsel for the parties, writ
petition is decided finally.
The petitioner has filed the present petition being aggrieved
by order dated 5.1.2021 by which respondent No.3 has ordered recovery
of Rs.3,17,484/- as excess payment made to the petitioner and interest of
Rs.6,03,430/- @ 12% per annum. By way of this petition, the petitioner is
not challenging the recovery of the principal amount paid to him, but he is
challenging the recovery of the interest part only.
Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that in
an identical matter the order of recovery dated 13.08.2020 was subject
matter of challenge at the instance of another employee namely
Ramchandra Parmar raising the limited grievance in respect of the
recovery of interest amount and this Court by order dated 04.09.2020
passed in W.P.No.12285/2020 had allowed the writ petition partly by
granting relief in respect of the interest part. She further submits that in
the case of Ramchandra Parmar, reliance was placed in the order passed in
the case of Rajendra Bhawsar and the Division Bench by order dated
06.08.2018 passed in W.A.No.120/2018 in the matter of State of M.P. and
another Vs. Rajendra Bhawsar had affirmed the order of the Single Judge
by dismissing the appeal.
Learned counsel for the State has opposed the petition by
- : 2 :-
W.P. No.1542/2021
submitting that the petitioner being in service employee is liable to pay
interest on the excess payment which is made.
It is undisputed that in an identical matter the order of
recovery of interest was subject matter of challenge in the case of
Ramchandra Parmar Vs. State of M.P. and others which has been allowed
by this Court by order dated 04.09.2020 passed in W.P.No.12885/2020 by
holding as under:-
"By this writ petition, the petitioner has challenged the
recovery order dated 13/8/2020 on the limited ground that the
petitioner has no grievance in respect of the principal amount
which has been paid in excess, but his grievance is confined to
the interest amount. It has been pointed by learned counsel for
petitioner that the recovery is still continuing. She has submitted
that the excess payment was not made to the petitioner on
account of any fraud or misrepresentation by him, therefore, he
is not liable to pay the interest. Placing reliance upon the order
dated 15/07/2020 passed in WP No.9768/2020 in the case of
Shankarlal Sharma Vs. State of M.P. and others she has
submitted that the case is squarely covered by this order.
Learned counsel for the State has not disputed this.
The coordinate Bench of this Court in WP No.9768/2020
had passed the following order:-
"Parties through their counsel.
The petitioner before this Court has filed this present
petition being aggrieved with the recovery ordered by the
respondents.
Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued before this
Court that the petitioner is not aggrieved so far as the principal
amount is being recovered from the petitioner, however, he is
aggrieved only in
respect of interest component.
Learned counsel for the petitioner has drawn the attention
of this Court towards the judgment delivered in the case of
Rajendra Bhawsar v/s The State of Madhya Pradesh & Others
(W.P.No.826/2017) and the co-ordinate Bench of this Court has
quashed the recovery in respect of the interest component only.
A writ appeal was also preferred in the matter i.e. W.A.
No.120/2018 (The State of Madhya Pradesh & Others v/s
Rajendra Bhawsar) and the Division Bench of this Court has
upheld the judgment delivered by the learned Single Judge,
meaning thereby, the recovery in respect of the interest
component has been quashed.
Learned Government Advocate for the respondents/State has not
disputed the aforesaid facts.
This Court, after hearing learned counsel for the parties is
- : 3 :-
W.P. No.1542/2021
of the considered opinion that the present writ petition deserves
to be allowed and is accordingly, partly allowed. The respondent
shall be free to recover the principal amount. It is further made
clear that there will be no recovery in respect of the interest
component. In case, the petitioner attains the age of
superannuation, the respondents shall be free to recover the
amount from his terminal dues.
With the aforesaid, the present writ petition
stands partly allowed.
It is needless to mention that in case, certified copy is not
available due to some technical reason, the order uploaded on
the website of the High Court shall be treated as certified copy
for all purposes and the counsel shall be free to obtain certified
copy later on as and when facilities are made available to him."
Having regard to the submissions made by learned
counsel for parties and undisputed position that the present case
stands on the same footing, the present writ petition is also
disposed of by holding that the directions issued in the matter of
Shankarlal Sharma (supra)will apply mutatis mutandis in the
present case also."
The record reflects that this Court has placed reliance upon
the order passed in the case of Rajendra Bhawsar (Supra) and the writ
appeal in the case of Rajendra Bhawsar has been dismissed.
Hence, I am of the opinion that the petitioner is also entitled
to the same relief on the ground of parity. Hence, the present writ petition
is disposed of by directing that the order passed in the case of
Ramchandra Parmar (Supra) will apply mutatis mutandis in the case of
the present petitioner also. Let the amount of interest already recovered
from the petitioner be refunded to the petitioner within a period of sixty
days from the date of production of certified copy of this order.
With the aforesaid, this petition stands disposed of.
( VIVEK RUSIA )
JUDGE
Alok/-
Digitally signed by Alok Gargav
Date: 2021.04.01 18:50:00 +05'30'
