Citation : 2023 Latest Caselaw 13554 MP
Judgement Date : 21 August, 2023
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE GURPAL SINGH AHLUWALIA
ON THE 21 st OF AUGUST, 2023
WRIT PETITION No. 25255 of 2018
BETWEEN:-
DR. MOHAMMAD HANIF S/O SHRI BIFAI SAUDAGAR,
AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS, OCCUPATION: DOCTOR R/O.
3/B-22, BAHAR SAHARA STATE, BHOJPUR ROAD,
BHOPAL (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....PETITIONER
(BY SHRI SHOEB H. KHAN - ADVOCATE)
AND
1. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH THR. PRINCIPAL
SECRETARY DEPT. OF AYUSH VALLABH BHAWAN,
BHOPAL (MADHYA PRADESH)
2. UNDER SECRETARY DEPARTMENT OF AYUSH
VALLABH BHAWAN BHOPAL (MADHYA PRADESH)
3. COM M IS S ION ER DEPARTMENT OF AYUSH
SATPURA BHAWAN BHOPAL (MADHYA PRADESH)
4. DIVISIONAL JOINT DIRECTOR, TREASURY
ACCOUN TS AND PENSION OFFICE, INDORE
(MADHYA PRADESH)
.....RESPONDENTS
(BY SHRI MOHAN SAUSARKAR - GOVERNMENT ADVOCATE)
This petition coming on for admission this day, th e court passed the
following:
ORDER
This petition under Article 226 of Constitution of India has been filed against order dated 24.09.2018 passed by Upper Secretary, Ayush Department, Government of M.P. by which it has been decided that petitioner was not Signature Not Verified Signed by: VARSHA CHOURASIYA Signing time: 24-08-2023 18:39:10
entitled for second time scale pay and accordingly, order has been issued to recover excess amount paid from petitioner.
2. It is submitted by counsel for petitioner that since order under challenge was issued after retirement of petitioner, therefore, in the light of judgment passed by Supreme Court in the case of State of Punjab & Others Vs. Rafiq Masih (Whitewasher) reported in (2015) 4 SCC 334, recovery cannot be made.
3. Per contra, it is submitted by counsel for State that before refixation of salary of petitioner he had given an undertaking, therefore, amount can be recovered in the light of judgment passed by Supreme Court in the case High
Court of Punjab and Haryana and others Vs. Jagdev Singh reported in (2016) 14 SCC 267.
4. Heard learned counsel for parties.
5. Petitioner is retired Class-II officer. The only question for consideration is as to whether excess amount paid to petitioner can be recovered after his retirement or not?
6. Supreme Court in the case of Jagdev Singh (supra) has held that if petitioner had given an undertaking for refund of excess payment, then the same can be recovered.
7. In the present case also, petitioner had given an undertaking and thus excess amount paid to petitioner can be recovered.
8. Counsel for petitioner has not challenged the decision of the authorities by which it has been held that excess payment was paid to petitioner.
9. Accordingly, this petition fails and is hereby dismissed.
Signature Not Verified Signed by: VARSHA CHOURASIYA Signing time: 24-08-2023 18:39:10
(G.S. AHLUWALIA) JUDGE vc
Signature Not Verified Signed by: VARSHA CHOURASIYA Signing time: 24-08-2023 18:39:10
Publish Your Article
Campus Ambassador
Media Partner
Campus Buzz
LatestLaws.com presents: Lexidem Offline Internship Program, 2026
LatestLaws.com presents 'Lexidem Online Internship, 2026', Apply Now!