Madhya Pradesh High Court
Shailendra Kumar Sharma vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 10 March, 2022
Author: Anand Pathak
1
HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
R.P. 300/2021
(Shailendra Kumar Sharma Vs. State of M.P. & Ors.)
Gwalior dated 10.03.2022
Shri Alok Kumar Sharma, Advocate for the
petitioner.
Shri M.P.S. Raghuvanshi, Additional Advocate
General for the respondents/State.
1. With the consent of learned counsel for the rival
parties, this review petition is heard finally.
2. The instant review petition has been preferred by the
petitioner seeking recalling of the order dated 20/03/2019
passed by this Court, whereby, W.A. No. 483/2019
preferred by the respondents/State is allowed and the
order dated 11/09/2018 passed by Single Bench in W.P.
No. 5624/2016 has been set aside.
3. Precisely stated facts of the case are that the
petitioner preferred W.P. No. 5624/2016 under Article 226
of Constitution of India praying for the following
reliefs :-
(a) That, the respondents may kindly be directed to
make payment of gratuity, arrears and remaining
amount of petitioner within the time frame with
interest at the rate of 18% per annum.
HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
R.P. 300/2021
(b) That, any other order or direction, which the
Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the facts
and circumstances of the case, may kindly be also
passed along with the cost of petition.
4. It is the submission of learned counsel for the
petitioner that he is an employee of police department
(Ministerial Cadre) and as per his submission he was
entitled for pay scale akin to executive post. The
controversy travelled through different fora, ultimately
culminated into Apex Court, whereby, Apex Court held
that pay scale of executive police force and ministerial
police force cannot be at par, therefore, the benefits of pay
scale which were earlier granted to a person like petitioner
were directed to be recovered.
5. During pendency of the litigation at Apex Court,
petitioner preferred W.P. No. 5624/2016 and sought
directions to the respondents to make payment of gratuity,
arrears and remaining amount of petitioner because in
absence of any calculation or confusion regarding exact
nature of pay scale, the petitioner despite superannuated
HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
R.P. 300/2021
on 30/06/2016 did not get the benefit of pensionary
benefits and finding hard to make both the ends meet,
therefore, he sought release of arrears, gratuity, etc.
6. Learned Single Judge issued certain directions for
making representation to the authorities and the
authorities, in turn, were directed to ponder over it.
7. State took exception to the said order and preferred
W.A. No. 483/2019, in which, vide order dated
20/03/2019, the order of writ court was set aside and it
was directed to deduct the amount in view of judgment
passed by the Apex Court in the case of S.H. Baig &
Others Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh & Others on
25/09/2018 in Civil Appeal No. 9888-9899 of 2018.
Since, the Apex Court delineated the principle of
differentiation of pay scale in respect of police executive
force and police ministerial force, therefore, the writ
appellate court passed the order in the wake of such
pronouncement.
8. Thereafter, it appears from submissions and record
that petitioner received a letter dated 13/02/2020
HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
R.P. 300/2021
(Annexure A/20), in which, calculation sheet is attached
and perusal of the sheet indicates that interest has been
levied over the said amount of recovery to the tune of Rs.
22,59,223/-. Other calculations, according to the petitioner
are misleading and incorrect. Therefore, this review
petition has been preferred by the petitioner to ventilate
his grievances in respect of error in calculation.
9. It is the submission of learned counsel for petitioner
that in view of subsequent calculation sheet received by
the petitioner, it appears that he has to pay an amount for
which he is not obliged to pay because it contained
interest and other incorrect entries for payment. He
referred order dated 14/12/2021 passed by Single Bench
of this Court in bunch of writ petition (Gwalior Bench),
in which, W.P. No. 13264/2020 is lead petition, in which,
learned Single Judge directed the respondents /State not to
insist upon recovery of the interest as it would be very
harsh on the petitioner and direction for re-calculation of
excess payment has been made and till calculation is made
recovery of the amount stood stayed. In case of recovery
HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
R.P. 300/2021
had already been effected, total excess payment paid to
the petitioner is directed to be re-calculated and thereafter
direction to ensure consequential follow up action has
been issued.
10. It is the grievances of the petitioner that in view of
subsequent development, he is facing undue hardship and
error of calculation affect his fundamental and statutory
rights especially when order dated 14/12/2021
specifically prohibits levy of interest in such matter. He
seeks remedy to withdraw the writ petition earlier filed.
11. Per contra, learned Additional Advocate General for
the respondents/State vehemently opposed the prayer on
the ground that while considering the rival contentions,
this Court passed order dated 20/03/2019 in W.A. No.
483/2019 based upon judgment pronounced by the Apex
Court in the case of S.H. Baig (supra) and thereafter
directions were given to deduct the amount and settle the
retiral dues after deducting the amount, therefore, the
authorities proceeded accordingly. No palpable error is
apparent on the face of record and looking to the narrow
HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
R.P. 300/2021
scope of review, no case is made out for reviewing or
recalling of the order under review.
12. Heard.
13. This is a case where petitioner is trying to get the
order reviewed on the basis of subsequent development
made by way of issuance of letter dated 13/02/2020
(Annexure A/20), by which, the petitioner has been asked
to deposit excess amount of Rs. 22,59,223/- and
incidentally calculation sheet attached with the letter
indicates that interest has been levied (year wise) and if
controversy is seen from this vantage point then it appears
that the petitioner would not get the benefits of order
dated 14/12/2021, if he is rendered remediless. At the
same time, looking to the scope of review, it is not
permissible to allow the petitioner to withdraw this
petition, at this stage, because at two stages, merit of the
case has been considered on the basis of facts and legal
guidance available before the Court.
14. However, in view of subsequent development in the
wake of issuance of letter dated 13/02/2020, petitioner is
HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
R.P. 300/2021
always at liberty to prefer representation before the
authorities concerned to ventilate his grievances in
accordance with law and refer the error in pay
fixation/calculation as well regarding imposition of
interest and the respondents/State is duty bound to
consider the same in accordance with law and that liberty
is given in the wake of subsequent development and order
dated 14/12/2021 passed in bunch of writ petitions
referred above with a clarification that the authorities
concerned shall consider the representation so preferred
by the petitioner in accordance with law and objectively
without being influenced by any previous proceedings the
previous observations of this Court made in the previous
litigations.
(Anand Pathak) (Satish Kumar Sharma)
Judge Judge
Durgekar*
SANJAY Digitally signed by SANJAY NAMDEORAO
DURGEKAR
DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF MADHYA
NAMDEOR
PRADESH BENCH GWALIOR, ou=HIGH COURT
OF MADHYA PRADESH BENCH GWALIOR,
postalCode=474001, st=Madhya Pradesh,
2.5.4.20=afa4701a2661e1fb7720c022ffc277608
AO
ce55ba67f3594a641181b9ae8448e58,
pseudonym=DA26B82C5BC4CAF69072CA5A13
CA996C4169AB06,
serialNumber=1190D1488DBA862FB108ED662
DURGEKAR
62DC2DC2CB9D310D73128B3A6E7B046FCF28
227, cn=SANJAY NAMDEORAO DURGEKAR
Date: 2022.03.11 10:32:23 +05'30'
