Madhya Pradesh High Court
Smt. Shashikala Kushwaha vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 19 December, 2023
Author: Anand Pathak
Bench: Anand Pathak
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT GWALIOR
WP No. 30728 of 2023
(SMT. SHASHIKALA KUSHWAHA Vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS)
Dated : 19-12-2023
Shri B.P. Singh - Advocate for the petitioner.
Shri Vivek Khedkar - Government Advocate for the respondents/State.
1. The present petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has
been preferred challenging the order dated 17.10.2019 (Annexure P/1) and the
order dated 05.04.2021 (Annexure P/2) and order dated 13.03.2023 (Annexure
P/3), whereby the petitioner has been directed to deposit a sum of
Rs.29,77,363/- towards of recovery of wrong pay fixation done prior to the
year 2016 and though, there was no mis-representation 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 March, 2003, 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, P/2 and P/3 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 17.10.2019, 05.04.2021 and
13.03.2023 (Annexures P/1, P/2 and P/3) by which the recovery of
Rs.29,77,363/- 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
Abhi
