Madhya Pradesh High Court
The State Of Madhya Pradesh vs Santosh Mishra on 13 December, 2023
Author: Vivek Rusia
Bench: Vivek Rusia, Anil Verma
-1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT I N D O R E
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VIVEK RUSIA
&
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE ANIL VERMA
ON THE 13th OF DECEMBER, 2023
WRIT APPEAL No. 2193 of 2023
BETWEEN:-
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH, PRAMUKH SACHIV,
1.
MANTRALAYA, VALLABH BHAWAN, BHOPAL (MADHYA PRADESH)
POLICE UPAYUKT, MUKHYALAYA, NAGARIYA, INDORE RANI SARAY,
2.
REGAL CHOURAHA, INDORE (MADHYA PRADESH)
SAMBHAGIYA PENSION ADHIKARI, COLLECTORATE CAMPUS,
3.
INDORE (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....APPELLANT
(BY SHRI KUSHAL GOYAL, DEPUTY ADVOCATE GENERAL.)
AND
SANTOSH MISHRA S/O SHRI BHAGWATIPRASAD JI, AGED ABOUT 63
YEARS, OCCUPATION: RETIRED UPNIRIKSHEK (KAARYAVAHAK), R/O
206 ARADHANA NAGAR AERODRUM ROAD, INDORE (MADHYA
PRADESH)
.....RESPONDENTS
(NONE PRESENT FOR THE RESPONDENT.)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This appeal coming on for admission this day, Justice Vivek Rusia
passed the following:
ORDER
Heard on I.A. No.8849/2023, which is an application for
condonation of delay.
02. The State Government has filed this appeal challenging the
order dated 31.03.2023 passed in Writ Petition No.28551 of 2022
whereby the Writ Court has allowed the writ petition and quashed the
impugned recovery of Rs.6,38,942/- initiated at the time of retirement.
03. The writ petitioner retired from service after attaining the
age of superannuation on 31.08.2022. At the time of retirement , the
appellant found that there is an error in pay fixation in the year 1987,
due to which the excess salary was paid to the writ petitioner and the
same is liable to be recovered solely on the ground that the writ
petitioner gave an undertaking that any amount recoverable can be
recovered from his retiral dues. Admittedly, the undertaking was taken
from the petitioner at the time of retirement not at the time of pay
fixation.
04. Recently, the Apex Court has dismissed the SLP filed by State
of M.P. challenging the order dated 03.02.2017 passed in W.A. No.95 of
2017 (State of Madhya Pradesh v/s Madanlal Bardele) in which the
recovery was quashed in view of the law laid down by the Apex Court in
case of State of Punjab v/s Rafiq Masih and distinguished the judgment
passed in case of Jagdev Singh (supra). The order passed in Special Leave
Petition (Civil) Diary No(s).34048/2017 (The State of Madhya Pradesh
and others v/s Madan Lal Bardele) is reproduced below: -
"After hearing learned counsel for the parties, we find no
ground to interfere with the impugned order passed by the
High Court. The Special Leave Petition is, accordingly,
dismissed. Pending interlocutory application(s), if any, stand(s)
disposed of."
04. The order passed by the Division Bench in the case of
State of M.P. v/s Madanlal Bardele (W.A. No.95/2017) is also
reproduced below: -
"Heard on I.A. No.1385/2017, an application for condonation
of delay.
There is a delay of 50 days in filing the appeal.
For the reason stated in the application, I.A. is allowed. Delay
in filing the appeal is hereby condoned.
Having heard learned counsel for the parties, we are of the
considered view that the learned writ court has correctly
decided the question of recovery after following the mandate
of the law laid down in the case of State of Punjab and other
Vs. Rafique Masih (white washer) reported in (2015) 4 SCC
334) and the undertaking given by the petitioner for permitting
the recovery will not come in the way and law laid down by
the Supreme Court in the case of High Court of Punjab and
Haryana vs. Jagdev Singh, Civil Appeal No.3500/2016,
decided on 29.07.2016 will not apply in the case of the present
petitioner as their undertaking does not need the requirement
as are contemplated by the Supreme Court in the case of
Jagdev Singh (supra). Accordingly, finding no order with the
order passed by the learned Writ Court, no ground to interfere
in the petition, hence, the petition stands dismissed."
05. In view of the above, we do not find any ground to condone
the delay in filing the appeal and admit the same. Accordingly, I.A.
No8849/2023 stands dismissed. As a consequence, Writ Appeal also
stands dismissed.
(VIVEK RUSIA) (ANIL VERMA)
JUDGE JUDGE
Divyansh
