Gajendra Prasad Gurung vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh
2022 Latest Caselaw 3077 MP

                                                                     1
                                     HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH : BENCH AT INDORE
                                                            W.P. No.27935/2021
                                     Gajendra Prasad Gurung S/o Nain Bahadur Vs. State of M.P. & Others

                                Indore, Dated:- 04/03/2022

                                        Shri L.C.Patne, Counsel for the petitioner - Gajendra Prasad

                                Gurung S/o Nain Bahadur.

                                        Shri    Bhuvan     Deshmukh,      Govt.    Advocate     for   the

                                respondent/State.

1. The petitioner before this Court has filed this present petition

being aggrieved by the order dated 27.02.2017 and 06.07.2021 passed

by the respondent No.2.

2. The petitioner's contention is that an order of recovery was

issued against the petitioner directing recovery. Now the respondents

are recovering the interest also on excess amount paid to the

petitioner.

3. 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.

4. 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, Signature Not Verified SAN

Digitally signed by NEERAJ SARVATE Date: 2022.03.04 18:39:34 IST

HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH : BENCH AT INDORE W.P. No.27935/2021 Gajendra Prasad Gurung S/o Nain Bahadur Vs. State of M.P. & Others

the recovery in respect of the interest component has been quashed.

5. Learned Government Advocate for the respondents/State has

not disputed the aforesaid facts.

6. This Court, after hearing learned counsel for the parties is 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.

7. With the aforesaid, the present Writ Petition stands partly

allowed.

(PRANAY VERMA) JUDGE ns

Signature Not Verified SAN

Digitally signed by NEERAJ SARVATE Date: 2022.03.04 18:39:34 IST