Madhya Pradesh High Court
Smt. Anita Goyal vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh ... on 20 April, 2023
Author: Vivek Rusia
- : 1 :-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT I N D O R E
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VIVEK RUSIA
ON THE 20th OF APRIL, 2023
WRIT PETITION No. 7887 of 2023
BETWEEN:-
SMT. ANITA GOYAL W/O SHRI SHARAD KUMAR
GOYAL, AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS, OCCUPATION:
NIL 23 SHRIDHAM KATJU NAGAR, DISTRICT
RATLAM (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....PETITIONER
(BY MS. ARCHANA UPADHYAYA, LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE
PETITIONER).
AND
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH EDUCATION
1. DEPARTMENT THROUGH SECRETARY VALLAH
BHAWAN BHOPAL (MADHYA PRADESH)
DISTRICT EDUCATION OFFICER RATLAM
2.
(MADHYA PRADESH)
DISTRICT TREASURY OFFICER RATLAM
3.
(MADHYA PRADESH)
PRINCIPAL GOVERNMENT HIGHER
4. SECONDARY SCHOOL NO. 1 RATLAM (MADHYA
PRADESH)
.....RESPONDENTS
( BY SHRI TARUN KUSHWAH, LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE
RESPONDENTS/STATE).
This petition coming on for admission this day, the court passed
the following:
ORDER
- : 2 :-
Heard on the question of admission.
The petitoner has filed this present petition seeking refund
of Rs.20,000/- which was recovered as an interest from the
husband of the petitioner after the retirement in the year 2013.
The petitioner husband was an employee of School
Education Department. He died on 10.11.2012, he was given the
benefit of second time higher pay scale and two increements. In
the year 2013, it came to the knowledge of the department that the
second time pay scale was wrongly given because he was already
been promoted twice during the service, therefore, initiated the
recovery of Rs. 53,107/- with interest Rs.20,003/-. The aforesaid
amount was recovered in the year 2013 and paid by the petitioner
and the remaining amount of terminal benefits were paid.
After 10 years the petitioner has approached this Court
challenging the said recovery of interest. The petitioner has
declared that there is no delay in filing this petition as there is a
recurring cause of action.
So far, the recovery is concerned, it has already been made
in the year 2013, at that time the petitioner did not challenge the
said recovery and permitted respondent to deduct from the retiral
dues. It was a one time recovery, the petititoner is not challenging
the recovery of prinicpal amount as well as withdrawal of two
increements. Had the petitioner claiming the two increements and
principal amount then it would have been a recurring cause of
- : 3 :-
action, but the petitioner is only seeking refund of the interest
amount which was only a one time recovery. In case of State of
Orissa & Anr. Vs. Mamta Mohanty reported in (2011) 3 SCC
436, the Apex Court has held that
"54. This Court has consistently rejected the contention that a
petition should be considered ignoring the delay and laches in case
the petitioner approaches the Court after coming to know of the
relief granted by the Court in a similar case as the same cannot
furnish a proper explanation for delay and laches. A litigant cannot
wake up from deep slumber and claim impetus from the judgment in
cases where some diligent person had approached the Court within a
reasonable time. (See: M/s Rup Diamonds & Ors. vs. Union of India
& Ors., AIR 1989 SC 674; State of Karnataka & Ors. v. S.M.
Kotrayya & Ors., (1996) 6 SCC 267; and Jagdish Lal & Ors. v. State
of Haryana & Ors., AIR 1997 SC 2366)."
(Emphasis Supplied)
In view of above, this petition is dismissed as it suffers
from delay and latches.
( VIVEK RUSIA )
JUDGE
akanksha
AKANKSH Digitally signed by AKANKSHA LAHORIYA
DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF MADHYA
PRADESH BENCH INDORE, ou=HIGH COURT OF
MADHYA PRADESH BENCH INDORE,
A 2.5.4.20=7fd9a0d74045c69c6196b8324558cec
aa1393c8ed80d3ba64dcde72f587b1bbf,
postalCode=452001, st=Madhya Pradesh,
serialNumber=10E6B3A60B88AB589EB6DD1D
LAHORIYA
E710D8EC01942125E3CC4D3F4A889029977D
7822, cn=AKANKSHA LAHORIYA
Date: 2023.04.25 19:19:48 +05'30'
