Lalit Prakash Pandiwal vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh
2022 Latest Caselaw 3483 MP

                                                         1
                           IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT JABALPUR
                                                        BEFORE
                                          HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VIVEK AGARWAL
                                                ON THE 11th OF MARCH, 2022

                                          WRIT PETITION No. 17348 of 2020

                              Between:-
                              LALIT PRAKASH PANDIWAL S/O RAMNIWASH
                              PANDIWAL   , AGED   ABOUT     62  YEARS,
                              OCCUPATION: RETIRED S.I. (M) INFRONT OF
                              RUDRAKCH GARDEN VAISHALI NAGAR SHIVAJI
                              WARD SAGAR DISTRICT SAGAR MP (MADHYA
                              PRADESH)

                                                                                       .....PETITIONER
                              (BY SHRI KAMLESH SINGH RAJPUT, ADVOCATE)

                              AND

                      1.      THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH THR. THE
                              P R I N C I P A L SECRETARY HOME DEPT.
                              MANTRALAYA VALLABH BHAWAN (MADHYA
                              PRADESH)

                      2.      DIRECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE POLICE
                              HEADQUARTERS BHOPAL (MADHYA PRADESH)

                      3.      DIRECTOR    STATE      FORENSIC SCIENCE
                              LABORATORY SAGAR DISTT. SAGAR (MADHYA
                              PRADESH)

                      4.      JOINT DIRECTOR DIRECTORATE OF TREASURY
                              AND   ACCOUNTS    PENSION REGION SAGAR
                              (MADHYA PRADESH)

                      5.      DISTRICT PENSION OFFICER             SAGAR DISTT.
                              SAGAR (MADHYA PRADESH)

                                                                                    .....RESPONDENTS
                              (BY SHRI VIJAY KUMAR SHUKLA, PANEL LAWYER)

                            This petition has come up for hearing on admission on this day, the court
                      passed the following:
                                                          ORDER

Petitioner's grievance is that petitioner was appointed as ASI (M) on 22/10/1982. He was promoted as SI (M) in the year 2005. Petitioner attained the age of superannuation on 30/06/2020.

On 09/10/2020 respondent No.3 issued an order of recovery against the present petitioner to the tune of Rs.16,02,228/-. Out of this amount of recovery, Signature SAN Not Verified principle amount is to the tune of Rs.7,83,235/- and interest amount has been Digitally signed by TULSA SINGH Date: 2022.03.14 calculated at Rs.8,18,993/-. It is submitted that in light of the law laid down by 10:35:52 IST

Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Punjab & others Vs. Rafiq Masih (White Washer) & others, (2015) 4 SCC 334, if any recovery is to be made from Class-III employee for the fault of respondents, then interest amount cannot be recovered from the present petitioner.

Reliance is also placed on the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Civil Appeal Nos.9888-9899 OF 2018 (arising out of S.L.P. (Civil) Nos.27288- 27299 OF 2011) (S.H. Baig & others Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh and others) dated September, 25/2018 wherein Hon'ble Supreme Court has upheld the decision of High Court that Ministerial employees are not entitled to claim parity of pay scale with the executive posts. However, petitioner's contention is that even if they have to be denied parity in the pay scale, then recovery can be made only of the principal amount and not of the interest amount as petitioner was not at fault for excess payment made in terms of various judgments of different judicial forums.

Taking these facts into consideration and also the law laid down by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Rafiq Masih (White Washer) & others (supra), petitioner undertakes to pay sum of the principal amount, therefore, recovery of interest amount is hereby quashed.

In above terms, this writ petition is disposed of.

(VIVEK AGARWAL) JUDGE ts