Girjashankar vs State Of M.P.
2023 Latest Caselaw 9064 MP

                                                             1
                            IN     THE         HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
                                                     AT INDORE
                                                       BEFORE
                                           HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VIVEK RUSIA
                                                  ON THE 19 th OF JUNE, 2023
                                                WRIT PETITION No. 6672 of 2007

                           BETWEEN:-
                           GIRJASHANKAR S/O HARIRAM RUNWAL, AGED ABOUT
                           71 YEARS, OCCUPATION: PENSIONER, R/O GODHA
                           BHAWAN, RAM MOHALLA, JUNAKPURA, MANDSAUR,
                           DISTRICT MANDSAUR (MADHYA PRADESH)

                                                                                          .....PETITIONER
                           (NONE PRESENT ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER.)

                           AND
                           1.    STATE   OF    M.P. THROUGH   SECRETARY,
                                 DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE, VALLABH BHAWAN
                                 (MADHYA PRADESH)

                           2.    JOINT   DIRECTOR TREASURY,ACCOUNT AND
                                 PENTION, UJJAIN 7, BHARATPURI, UJJAIN
                                 (MADHYA PRADESH)

                           3.    TREASURY     OFFICER DISTT.              TREASURY
                                 MANDSAUR (MADHYA PRADESH)

                                                                                        .....RESPONDENTS
                           (SHRI KUSHAL GOYAL, LEARNED DEPUTY ADVOCATE GENERAL FOR
                           THE RESPONDENT / STATE.)

                                 T h is petition coming on for orders this day, t h e cou rt passed the
                           following:
                                                              ORDER

Petitioner has filed the present petition being aggrieved by order dated 14.09.2006 whereby recovery of Rs.23,453/- has been directed to be made from his pension.

At the time of filing of petition, petitioner was aged about 70 years. Vide Signature Not Verified Signed by: DIVYANSH SHUKLA Signing time: 19-06-2023 18:06:50

order dated 21.11.2007, this Court had stayed the order of recovery. No such undertaking along with the return has been filed in this petition by the respondent. The excess amount be paid under M.P. Civil Seva (Pension Ka Computation) Niyam, 1996.

This case is squarely covered by the judgment passed by the Apex Court in the case of State of Punjab and others Vs. Rafiq Masih (White Washer).

In similar facts and circumstances, the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court has allowed the petition No.6425/2015 dated 13.04.2023. The operative part of the petition is reproduced as under :-

Hon'ble the Supreme Court in the case of State of Punjab and others Vs. Rafiq Masih (White Washer) etc (2015 (1) MPHT 130 (SC), wherein it has been held as under:

"While it is not possible to postulate all situations of hardships where payments have mistakenly been made by an employer, in the following situations, a recovery by the employer would be impermissible in law:

(i) Recovery from employees belonging to Class-III and Class-IV service (or Group 'C' and Group 'D' service).

(ii) Recovery from retired employees, or employees who are due to retire within one year of the order of recovery.

(iii) Recovery from employees, when the excess payment has been made for a period in excess of five years, before the order of recovery is issued.

( i v ) Recovery in cases where an employee has wrongfully been required to discharge duties of a higher post, and has been paid accordingly, even though he should have rightfully been required to work against an inferior post.

(v) In any other case, where the Court arrives at the conclusion, that recovery if made from the employee, would be iniquitous or harsh or arbitrary to such an Signature Not Verified Signed by: DIVYANSH SHUKLA Signing time: 19-06-2023 18:06:50

extent, as would far outweigh the equitable balance of the employer's right to recover." In view of the above, recovery of Rs.23,453/- is hereby quashed. With the aforesaid, present petition is disposed off.

(VIVEK RUSIA) JUDGE Divyansh

Signature Not Verified Signed by: DIVYANSH SHUKLA Signing time: 19-06-2023 18:06:50