Madhya Pradesh High Court
Shiv Narayan Sharma vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 14 October, 2022
Author: Sushrut Arvind Dharmadhikari
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE SUSHRUT ARVIND DHARMADHIKARI
ON THE 14th OF OCTOBER, 2022
REVIEW PETITION No. 549 of 2022
BETWEEN:-
SHIV NARAYAN SHARMA S/O LATE SHRI
KANHAIYA LAL SHARMA, AGED ABOUT 61
YEARS, OCCUPATION: RETIRED EMPLOYEE C/O
MR. MANISH PALIWAL, WARD NO. 18, BEHIND
NARMADA NAGAR DHARAMSHALA ITI ROAD,
HOSHANGABAD, M.P. (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....PETITIONER
(BY SHRI SANJAY K.AGARWAL - ADVOCATE)
AND
1. THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH THROUGH
THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY FARMER
WELFARE AND AGRICULTURE DEVELOPMENT
GOVERNMENT OF MADHYA PRADESH
VALLABH BHAWAN BHOPAL (MP) (MADHYA
PRADESH)
2. DIRECTOR FARMER WELFARE AND
AGRICULTURE DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
VINDHYANCHAL BHAWAN BHOPAL M.P.
(MADHYA PRADESH)
3. DY. DIRECTOR TREASURY AND ACCOUNTS
B HOPAL PARYAVAS BHAWAN BHOPAL M.P.
(MADHYA PRADESH)
4. DISTRICT PENSION OFFICER BHOPAL SATPURA
BHAWAN BHOPAL M.P. (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....RESPONDENTS
(BY SHRI PRAVEEN NAMDEO - GOVERNMENT ADVOCATE)
This petition coming on for admission this day, th e court passed the
Signature Not Verified
SAN
following:
Digitally signed by HEMANT SARAF
Date: 2022.10.14 19:13:39 IST ORDER
2
This review petition has been filed under Order 47 Rule 1 C.P.C. seeking
review of the order dated 15.3.2022 passed by this Court in
W.P.No.4207/2016.
Facts
giving rise to filing of this review petition briefly stated are that the
petitioner had filed W.P.No.4207/2016 praying for the following reliefs :-
"i) This Hon'ble Court be pleased to issue a writ in the nature of
Certiorari quashing the impugned order dated 30.11.2015 and 17.12.2015
as arbitrary, illegal and void.
ii) This Hon'ble Court be further pleased to direct the respondents to
forthwith refund the recovery amount of Rs.2,27,022/- with interest @
10% per annum.
iii) Any other suitable relief deemed fit in the facts and circumstances of
the case may also kindly be granted together with the cost of this
petition".
This Court while deciding the writ petition has passed the order, the
operating part is reproduced hereinbelow :-
"8. In the case at hand, it is apparent from the record that the petitioner
was given the benefit of promotion on 27.1.1996. As per circular dated
19.4.1999, unless the petitioner completes 12 years from 27.1.1996, he is
not entitled for higher pay-scale. The purpose of granting Krammonati is
to remove stagnation in service. In the present case, the petitioner has
already granted first promotion in the year 1996.
9. In view of the aforesaid, no interference is required to be caused,
therefore, the petition fails and is hereby dismissed".
Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that this Court has erred in
coming to the conclusion that unless the petitioner completes 12 years of
service w.e.f. 27.1.1996, he is not entitled for higher pay-scale inasmuch as the
circular dated 19.4.1999 clause 2Kha provides that an employee after
completion of 24 years of service from the date of appointment would be
Signature Not Verified
SAN
entitled for 2nd krammonati on the date of completion of 24 years of service.
Digitally signed by HEMANT SARAF
Date: 2022.10.14 19:13:39 IST
From perusal of the aforesaid circular dated 19.4.1999 it is apparent that
the entire purpose of the Scheme is to give benefit of minimum two higher pay-
scale to the employees of the State Govt. on completion of 24 years of service.
Para 2(kha) provides that if a Govt. employee after appointment in regular
service completes 24 years of service and is not extended the benefit of more
than one higher pay-scale apart from the pay-scale applicable at the time of
entering into service by way of time bound promotion/selection/upgradation, he
would be entitled to another higher pay-scale under the Scheme.
In the instant case, admittedly, the petitioner was appointed w.e.f.
9.1.1975 on the post of Chainman, which is a class IV post. The impugned
order dated 17.12.2015, annexure P/5, clearly shows that the petitioner was
entitled for second Krammonati in the pay-scale of Rs.2750-70-3800-75-4400
after completion of 24 years of service. The petitioner completed his 24 years
of service in the year 1999. However, prior to completion of 24 years of
service, he got promoted to class III post (A.G.III) on the pay-scale of
Rs.3050-4590/- in the year 1996, which scale is higher than the proposed
second krammonati to a class IV post, i.e. Chainman. Since he has already got
higher pay-scale than that of second Krammonati of class IV post, the order,
annexure P/5, has rightly been passed quashing granting of second krammonati
w.e.f. 19.4.1999, which was granted only after completion of three years from
the date of promotion to class III post. Thus, the order dated 15.3.2022
passed by this Court in W.P.No.4207/2016, needs no interference.
So far as the prayer for recovery of the amount to the tune of
Rs.2,27,022/- made vide annexure P/6 is concerned, the same remained
undecided in writ petition. In view of the judgment of Hon’ble the Apex
Signature Not Verified
SAN
Court in the case of State of Punjab vs. Rafiq Masih (2015) 4 SCC 334 etc.
Digitally signed by HEMANT SARAF
Date: 2022.10.14 19:13:39 IST
recovery from retired Class-III employee is impermissible in law. However, the
Apex Court has clarified the position in the case of High Court of Punjab and
Haryana Vs. Jagdev Singh, (2014)16 SCC 267 wherein it is clarified that if
an employee furnishes an undertaking to the effect that he would be liable to
refund any excess payment made to him in case of wrong fixation of pay, then
recovery can be made.
Thus, in the light of law laid down by the Apex Court, the recovery made
vide annexure P/6 is set aside. Since, in the present case, there is no averment
with regard to undertaking furnished by the petitioner, the respondents/State are
directed to reconsider the claim of the petitioner with regard to recovery in the
light of judgments of the Apex court in the case of Rafiq Masih (supra) and
Jagdev Singh (supra) within a period of two months from the date of
communication of this order. In case the petitioner is found entitled for refund
of the amount, then the same shall be disbursed to him within a period of two
months thereafter.
With the aforesaid, the review petition stands disposed of.
Copy of this order be kept in the record of W.P.No.4207/2016.
(S. A. DHARMADHIKARI)
JUDGE
HS
Signature Not Verified
SAN
Digitally signed by HEMANT SARAF
Date: 2022.10.14 19:13:39 IST
