Narayan Das Purohit vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh
2022 Latest Caselaw 698 MP

                                    1
        The High Court Of Madhya Pradesh
                  WP No. 5782 of 2014
         (NARAYAN DAS PUROHIT Vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS)

Gwalior, Dated : 14-01-2022
      Heard through Video Conferencing.

      Shri Arun Katare, learned counsel for the petitioner.
      Shri G.K. Agarwal, learned counsel for the respondents/State.

With consent heard finally.

The present petition under Article 226 of the Consittution of India has been preferred by the petitioner taking exception to the orders dated

30.08.2017 (Annexure P/l) and 06.09.2017 (Annexure P/2), whereby the petitioner has been directed to deposit the amount of Rs.1,76,043/- at the verge of superannuation on the ground that two increments which were added due to family planning operations was wrongly added to the petitioner because of he was ad hoc employee at the relevant point of time.

It is the submission of learned counsel for the petitioner that thereafter petitioner was confirmed and petitioner worked till the age of superannuation uninterruptedly and this benefit has been given to the petitioners way back in 1986 and thereafter. It was not the case of any misrepresentation and

suppression of facts on the part of the petitioner. Counsel relied upon the judgment rendered by the Apex Court in the case of State of Punjab and others Vs. Rafiq Masih (White Washer), 2015 (1) MPHT 130 (SC) Para 11, to bring home the fact that he is Class- 3 employee and now retired, therefore, benefit earlier granted cannot be retrieved through impugned order.

Learned Government Advocate for the respondents/State opposed the prayer and according to him, petitioner was an ad hoc employee, therefore, was not entitled for any relief. He prayed for dismissal of this petition.

Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents appended thereto.

This is the case where the petitioner did not misrepresent about his possession and got the benefit of two increments on the basis of family

planning operations as per circular of State Government. At that point of time, benefit was given to the petitioner in 1986 and thereafter, it was repeated in 1996 and 2006. At the fag end of his career, he cannot be fastened with the liability of recovery as per impugned order of Apex Court in the case of State of Punjab and others Vs. Rafiq Masih (Supra) Para 11.

In view of the above settled position, respondents were not unable to

make any distinction in the case. Resultantly, impugned orders dated 30.08.2017 (Annexure P/l) and 06.09.2017 (Annexure P/2) are set aside and recovery initiated against the petitioner stands quashed.

The petition stands disposed of in above terms.

(ANAND PATHAK) JUDGE

Rashid

RASHID KHAN 2022.01.17 17:05:14 +05'30'