Madhya Pradesh High Court
Soneram Dhakad vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 7 December, 2023
Author: Anand Pathak
Bench: Anand Pathak
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT GWALIOR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE ANAND PATHAK
ON THE 7 th OF DECEMBER, 2023
WRIT PETITION No. 29968 of 2023
BETWEEN:-
SONERAM DHAKAD S/O SHRI ISWAR LAL DHAKAD, AGED
ABOUT 63 YEARS, OCCUPATION: PENSIONER VIVEKANAND
COLONY SHIVPURI (M.P.) (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....PETITIONER
(BY SHRI SHASHANK INDARPURKAR - ADVOCATE)
AND
1. THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH PRINCIPAL SECRETARY
GOVT. OF MADHYA PRADESH VALLABH BHAWAN,
BHOPAL (M.P.) (MADHYA PRADESH)
2. DIRECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE POLICE HEADQUARTERS
BHOPAL (MADHYA PRADESH)
3. SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE (S.P.) SHIVPURI
SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE (S.P.) SHIVPURI (MADHYA
PRADESH)
4. JOINT DIRECTOR, (TREASURY AND PENSION) MOTI
MAHAL , GWALIOR GWALIOR (MADHYA PRADESH)
5. TREASURY/PENSION OFFICER, SHIVPURI SHIVPURI
(MADHYA PRADESH)
.....RESPONDENTS
(BY SHRI RAVINDRA DIXIT - GOVT. ADVOCATE )
This petition coming on for admission this day, the court passed the following:
ORDER
1 . T he present petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been
preferred challenging the order dated 31.07.2022 (Annexure P/1) and the order dated
31.07.2022 (Annexure P/2), whereby the petitioner has been directed to deposit a sum of
Rs.32,40,766/- towards of recovery of wrong pay fixation done prior to the year 2016
and though, there was no misrepresentation on the part of petitioner and said recovery is
directed to be initiated after retirement, the said being contrary to the directives as issued
by Hon'ble Apex Court in the matter of State of Punjab Vs. Rafiq Masih(White
Washer) reported in (2015)4 SCC 334, it is bad in law. Further the order is challenged
on the ground that the anticipatory pension which was paid to the petitioner since his
retirement was abruptly stopped from the month of June, 2022, in pursuance of non
payment of amount which is due to be recovered from the petitioner from alleged wrong
pay fixation. This aspect of the matter is also contrary to the decision of the coordinate
Bench of this Court in W.P. No.291/2016 (Madanlal Bardele Vs. State of M.P. &
ors.), which has attained finality uptill Supreme Court, challenged at the behest of the
State..
2 . Learned Counsel for the petitioner has submitted that in the light of aforesaid
judgments and the factual matrix of the case, the present orders Annexure P/1 and
Annexure P/2 are per se illegal. Thus, he prayed for stay of the recovery as well as had
sought direction for grant of anticipatory pension which he was receiving in the light of
Section 61 of M.P. Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1976.
3. After hearing learned counsel for the petitioner, this Court deems it fit to stay the
effect and operation of the orders dated 31.07.2022 and 31.07.2022 (Annexures P/1 and
P/2) by which the recovery of Rs.32,40,766/- has been directed to be initiated against the
petitioner. As a consequence thereof, the stoppage of anticipatory pension also appears
to be prima facie not in consonance with Section 61 of M.P. Civil Services (Pension)
Rules, 1976, therefore,it is directed that till the decision of this petition, the petitioner
should be paid anticipatory pension.
4. Issue notice to the respondents on payment of process fee within four working
days through registered A.D. post as well as ordinary mode, returnable within four
weeks.
5. List after four weeks.
C.c. as per rule.
(ANAND PATHAK)
JUDGE
Van
VANDANA VERMA
2023.12.07
19:26:00 +05'30'
