Shyam Mohan Verma vs Managing Director M.P. Purvaq Kshetra ...
2023 Latest Caselaw 20494 MP

Madhya Pradesh High Court

Shyam Mohan Verma vs Managing Director M.P. Purvaq Kshetra ... on 5 December, 2023

Author: Maninder S. Bhatti

Bench: Maninder S. Bhatti

                                                             1
                            IN        THE   HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
                                                 AT JABALPUR
                                                       BEFORE
                                       HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE MANINDER S. BHATTI
                                              ON THE 5 th OF DECEMBER, 2023
                                              WRIT PETITION No. 1054 of 2014

                          BETWEEN:-
                          SHYAM MOHAN VERMA S/O LATE SHRI MANMOHAN
                          LAL VERMA, AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS, 1044 PRABHAT
                          NAGAR YADAV COLONY (MADHYA PRADESH)

                                                                                          .....PETITIONER
                          (BY SHRI K.N. PETHIA - ADVOCATE)

                          AND
                          1.     MANAGING DIRECTOR M.P. PURVAQ KSHETRA
                                 VIDYUT VITARAN   COMPANY LTD. SHAKTI
                                 BHAWAN (MADHYA PRADESH)

                          2.     M.P. POWER TRANSMISSION COMPANY LIMITED
                                 THROUGH ITS EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR [HRD]
                                 NAYAGAON,    RAMPUR,   DISTT. JABALPUR
                                 (MADHYA PRADESH)

                          3.     CHIEF ENGINEER M.P. PURVE KSHETRA VIDYUT
                                 VITRAN COMPANY LTD. RAMPUR, JABALPUR
                                 (MADHYA PRADESH)

                                                                                       .....RESPONDENTS
                          (BY SHRI UTKARSH AGRAWAL - ADVOCATE )

                                 This petition coming on for admission this day, th e court passed the
                          following:
                                                              ORDER

The petitioner has filed this petition while praying for following reliefs:-

It is therefore, humbly prayed that this Hon'ble

Court may kindly be pleased to quash the impugned order dated 12.01.2012 (Annexure-P/2) and 31.01.2012 (Annexure-P/3) and the amount so deducted pursuant to impugned orders may kindly be ordered to be refunded along with interest @18% per annum from the date of deduction till its repayment to the petitioner.

Exemplary and compensatory cost which is quantified at Rs.1,00,000/- be also awarded for unnecessarily harassing and defaming the petitioner for no fault on his part. Any other relief this Hon'ble Court deems fit and

proper in the facts and circumstances may also be granted to the petitioner with costs.

2. The facts as detailed in the petition reflect that the petitioner who was working as Assistant Grade - I with the respondent, availed Leave Travel Concession (LTC) in the year 1997 when he was travelling from Jabalpur to Vaishno Devi. The petitioner was serving with the erstwhile M.P. Electricity Board. On said journey, the petitioner travelled to various places by buses and taxies but he restricted his claim to his entitlement of 3500 km and accordingly, in his claim, he mentioned that he travelled by road. Unfortunately, the receipts which were obtained by the petitioner towards travel were lost, and therefore, he submitted the bill of lodging and boarding of the hotel to substantiate that he had travelled to the destination. The petitioner eventually superannuated on 31.01.2008. After four years from the date of retirement of the petitioner, the petitioner was issued impugned order dated 12.01.2012 (Annexure-P/2) by which, the petitioner was informed that as the petitioner availed LTC for which

he was not entitled, therefore, an amount of Rs.9312/- was required to be recovered from the petitioner and the respondent calculated a sum of Rs.21728/- towards interest and an amount in total of Rs.31040/- was sought to be recovered from the petitioner.

3. The said communication dated 12.01.2012 was followed by another communication dated 31.01.2012 (Annexure-P/3). Thereafter, the petitioner sought information under Right to Information Act and in response to which, the petitioner vide communication dated 06.08.2012 (Annexure-P/5) was informed that there were no documents pertaining to processing the petitioner's claim for LTC were available. The respondents also failed to inform under what provision of law the interest was charged from the petitioner. The information as regards relevant rules which made basis for recovery were also not provided to the petitioner. Thus, assailing the order impugned this petition is filed.

4. It is contended by the counsel for the petitioner that the order impugned was passed after four years from the date of superannuation of the petitioner. The petitioner herein was not afforded any opportunity of hearing nor any show cause notice was issued to the petitioner. It is also contended by the counsel that the response to the application submitted by the petitioner under Right to Information Act which has been brought on record as Annexure-P/5 makes it abundantly clear that without any basis the recovery was sought to be

effected by the respondents. None of the documents were supplied to the petitioner. The respondents utterly failed to bring on record the relevant rules which facilitated the respondents to order recovery of an amount of Rs.9312/-. It is thus, contended by the counsel that in view of the law laid down by the Apex Court in the case of State of Punjab and others Vs. Rafiq Masih, (2015) 4 SCC 334, the impugned orders are unsustainable.

5. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent contends that in the present case, the petitioner had availed Leave Travel Concession (LTC) while claiming that he had travelled in AC-I Coach from Jabalpur to New Delhi . The information was sought from the Western Central Railway by the respondent and in response to which, vide Annexure-R/1 a letter dated 15.12.2008, it was intimated to the respondent that there was no AC-I Coach in any of the trains from Jabalpur to New Delhi. Therefore, it was apparent that the LTC was availed on the basis of false claim by the petitioner and thus, resultantly the order impugned was issued.

6. It is further contention of the counsel that the petitioner cannot place reliance on the decision of the Rafiq Masih (supra) inasmuch as, the Apex Court in the case of of Chandi Prasad Unyal vs. State of Uttarakhand (2012 8 SCC 417) has held that the excess payment of public money does not belong to any Officer or Employee who has availed over payment, and therefore, there cannot be any restrictions on recovery of such an amount being public money.

7. It is also contended by the counsel that the Apex Court while dealing with the case of Rafiq Masih (supra) had made a reference to the Larger Bench and the Larger Bench vide order dated 08.07.2014 had answered the said aspect and concluded that there is a distinction between the powers which are conferred under Article 136 and 142 of the Constitution of India, and therefore, the view expressed in Chandi Prasad Unyal (supra) was not doubted by the Apex Court. Learned counsel for the respondent has also placed reliance on the decision of Gauhati High Court in the case of Dharampal Satyapal Ltd. vs. Union Of India and Ors. (2018 4 Gauhati

Law Reports 158)

8. No other point is pressed or argued by the parties.

9. Heard the submissions and perused the record.

10. In the present case, undisputedly the petitioner was superannuated on 31.01.2008 while serving as Assistant Grade - I. The travel in question pertains to year 1997. Therefore, it is apparent that for a period of 11 years, the respondents were sitting tight over the matter and did not take any step to verify as to whether the claims submitted by the petitioner were genuine or not. The respondents almost after lapse of 15 years from the date of travel and after two years from the date of retirement issued the impugned order. The impugned order contains that the original amount which is to be recovered from the petitioner was Rs.9312/- and an amount of Rs.21728/- towards interest was to be recovered from the petitioner. The respondents did not issue any notice to the petitioner before passing this order contained in Annexure-P/2 dated 12.01.2012. Undisputedly, the petitioner having been superannuated in the year 2012 and the dispute pertained to year 1997, it was incumbent upon the respondents to afford an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner.

11. The respondents have also failed to demonstrate as to under what provision of law, the interest has been charged by them despite the fact that Annexure-P/5 has been brought on record and there are pleadings in paragraph 5.8 of the petition regarding the aforesaid aspect. However, Annexure-P/5 has not been dealt with by the respondents in the entire return filed by them.

12. Therefore, this Court is of the considered view that the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Rafiq Masih (supra) squarely applies in this case inasmuch as, the petitioner herein has been superannuated after working as a Class-III employee and has been subjected to recovery which is

impermissible. Therefore, this Court has no hesitation to hold that the impugned orders are unsustainable.

13. Resultantly, the impugned order dated 12.01.2012 (Annexure- P/2) and order dated 31.01.2012 (Annexure-P/3) stand quashed. The respondents are directed to refund the amount mentioned in the impugned order dated 12.01.2012 (Annexure-P/2) to the petitioner along with interest @ 6% per annum.

14. Let the entire exercise be completed within a period of 90 days from the date of production of certified copy of this order.

15. With the aforesaid, the petition stands allowed.

(MANINDER S. BHATTI) JUDGE mn