Smt. Savita Agrawal vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh
2023 Latest Caselaw 1971 MP

                                                         1
                          IN    THE       HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
                                               AT JABALPUR
                                                    BEFORE
                                      HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VIVEK AGARWAL
                                            ON THE 3 rd OF FEBRUARY, 2023
                                            WRIT PETITION No. 7698 of 2019

                         BETWEEN:-
                         SMT. SAVITA AGRAWAL W/O SHRI R.K. AGRAWAL,
                         AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS, OCCUPATION: RETIRED
                         ASSISTANT GRADE-III,   GOVT.  TULSI  DEGREE
                         COLLEGE, ANUPPUR (M.P.) R/O SHANKAR MANDIR
                         CHOURAHA, CHETNA NAGAR (MADHYA PRADESH)

                                                                                .....PETITIONER
                         (BY SHRI ASHOK KUMAR GUPTA - ADVOCATE)

                         AND
                         1.    THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH THR. THE
                               PRINCIPAL SECRETARY HIGHER EDUCATION
                               DEPARTMENT    VALLABH  BHAWAN BHOPAL
                               (MADHYA PRADESH)

                         2.    THE COMMISSISSIONER HIGHER EDUCATION
                               DEPARTMENT SATPUDA BHAWAN BHOPAL MP
                               (MADHYA PRADESH)

                         3.    THE REGIONAL ADDITIONAL DIRECTOR HIGHER
                               EDUCATION DEPARTMENT SATPUDA BHAWAN
                               BHOPAL MP (MADHYA PRADESH)

                         4.    JOINT DIRECTOR DIRECTORATE OF TREASURY
                               AND ACCOUNTS DISTT REWA MP (MADHYA
                               PRADESH)

                         5.    PR IN CIPAL GOVT TULSI DEGREE COLLEGE
                               ANUPPUR MP ANUPPUR MP (MADHYA PRADESH)

                         6.    DISTT PENSION         OFFICER DIRECTORATE OF
                               P E N S I O N DISTT   ANUPPUR MP (MADHYA
                               PRADESH)

                                                                              .....RESPONDENTS
                         (BY SHRI MANAS MANI VERMA - GOVERNMENT ADVOCATE)
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: VAIBHAV
YEOLEKAR
Signing time: 2/8/2023
11:47:52 AM
                                                              2
                               This petition coming on for admission this day, th e court passed the
                         following:
                                                              ORDER

Petitioner's contention is that this is second round of litigation being aggrieved of order of recovery as contained in Annexure P-13 dated 3/12/2018 which is sought to be recovered along with interest as per calculation Annexure P-14 on account of incorrect pay fixation of the petitioner.

It is submitted that the petitioner retired from the post of 'L.D.C.' Earlier, she had filed O.A. No. 753/1999 which on transfer to the High Court was registered as W.P. No. 13585/2003. This writ petition was decided vide order

dated 25/09/2008 wherein placing reliance on the judgment of Supreme Court in State of Haryana Vs. Sahib Ram (1995) Supp (1) SCC 18, the proposal to make recovery was quashed.

It is submitted that once, that recovery was quashed, then without seeking leave of the court, there is no justification for proceeding with the same recovery which was subject matter of O.A./W.P. and which was quashed by the Hon'ble High Court.

Shri Manas Mani Verma submits that modified order is issued but admits that no appeal was filed challenging the order dated 25/09/2008 passed in W.P. No. 13585/2003.

It is clear that once proceedings were finalized, the High Court had passed an order and had declared that no recovery will be made towards the excess amount paid to the petitioner prior to 22/04/1995 and will be only entitled to correct the mistake from the date it came to their notice i.e. on 22/04/1995 and refix the salary.

Thus, it is evident that unless respondents are able to demonstrate that Signature Not Verified Signed by: VAIBHAV YEOLEKAR Signing time: 2/8/2023 11:47:52 AM

the recovery is on account of some amounts erroneously paid after 22/04/1995 that was held to be permissible but not any recovery prior to that date for which the increments were erroneously released in favour of the petitioner. Even otherwise in the light of the law laid down by the Supreme Court in the case of State of Punjab and others Vs. Rafiq Masih (Whitewasher) (2014) 8 SCC 883, no recovery is permissible from a retired Class-III Government employee.

Accordingly, the impugned orders of recovery are set aside. In above terms, the petition deserves to be allowed and is allowed and disposed of.

(VIVEK AGARWAL) JUDGE vy

Signature Not Verified Signed by: VAIBHAV YEOLEKAR Signing time: 2/8/2023 11:47:52 AM