Gajendra Kumar Uikey vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh
2023 Latest Caselaw 21573 MP

Madhya Pradesh High Court

Gajendra Kumar Uikey vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 15 December, 2023

                                                                1
                            IN    THE         HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
                                                   AT JABALPUR
                                                        BEFORE
                                            HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VINAY SARAF
                                               ON THE 15 th OF DECEMBER, 2023
                                               WRIT PETITION No. 30334 of 2023

                           BETWEEN:-
                           GAJENDRA KUMAR UIKEY S/O SHRI DALCHAND
                           UIKEY, AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS, OCCUPATION: GOVT.
                           EMPLOYEE R/O QR. NO. B-29 JHULA GHAR STAFF
                           COLONY J.E.C. CAMPUS GOKALPUR DISTRICT
                           JABALPUR (MADHYA PRADESH)

                                                                                              .....PETITIONER
                           (BY SHRI B.P. YADAV-ADVOCATE)

                           AND
                           1.    THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH THROUGH ITS
                                 SECRETARY SCHOOL EDUCATION DEPARTMENT
                                 VALLABH BHAWAN BHOPAL DISTRICT (MADHYA
                                 PRADESH)

                           2.    TREASURY     OFFICER J A B A L P U R DISTRICT
                                 JABALPUR (MADHYA PRADESH)

                           3.    PRINCIPAL     GOVERNMENT ENGINEERING
                                 COLLEGE    JABALPUR DISTRICT JABALPUR
                                 (MADHYA PRADESH)

                                                                                           .....RESPONDENTS
                           (BY SHRI DARSHAN SONI-GOVT. ADVOCATE )

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

With the consent of parties, the matter is heard finally.

2. By the present petitioner, the petitioner has challenged the order dated 13.2.2023 vide Annexure P-1 whereby the recovery of Rs.2,19,080/- from

the petitioner on account of excess payment/grant of wrong increment has been ordered.

3. According to the petitioner, the recovery is not permissible in view of the order passed by the Apex Court in the matter of State of Punjab & Ors. Vs. Rafiq Masih (White Washer) (2015) 4 SCC 334 and the petitioner was not at fault. It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that neither the petitioner was misrepresented nor any fraud was committed by him for payment of excess amount. The petitioner is a Class III employee. Raising all these ground, petitioner submitted representations time to time but the representations have not been considered till now therefore, petitioner has approached to this

Court by preferring the present petition.

4. Counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner will be satisfied if the direction is issued to decide the representation submitted by the petitioner and till then the recovery be stayed.

5. Learned G.A. has no objection in deciding the representation of the petitioner, however, he opposed the prayer for grant of stay.

6. After hearing learned counsel for both the parties, I am of the view that the representations submitted by the petitioner time to time ought to have been decided in light of judgment of Apex Court in case of Rafiq Masih (supra) and therefore, it is directed that the respondent no.3 will decide the representation of the petitioner by passing a speaking order within a period of three months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order in accordance with law. The petitioner will be at liberty to file a detailed representation.

7. It is made clear that this Court has not expressed any opinion on the merits of the case.

8. Till the representation is decided, the operation of the order dated 13.2.2023 (Annexure P-1) shall remain stayed.

9. With the aforesaid direction, the present petition is disposed of.

(VINAY SARAF) JUDGE P/-