Vinita Tiwari vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh ...
2023 Latest Caselaw 3710 MP

                                                               1
                                        IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
                                                      AT INDORE
                                                        WP No. 2353 of 2023
                            (VINITA TIWARI AND OTHERS Vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH GENERAL ADMINISTRATION
                                                          DEPARTMENT AND OTHERS)

                          Dated : 02-03-2023
                                Shri Pratyush Mishra - Advocate for the petitioners.

                                Ms. Bharti Lakkad - Government Advocate for respondent No.1.

Shri Aniket Naik- Advocate for respondent No.2.

Heard on the question of interim relief.

Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that petitioners are Class-III

employees hence no recovery can be made from their salary in light of decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in State of Punjab & Ors. vs. Rafiq Masih, 2014(8) SCC 883 and order dated 17.06.2022 passed in W.P. No.23397 of 2021 (Mithalesh Tomar vs. State of M.P. and Others). It is submitted that petitioners being Class-III employees, they are squarely covered by the decision of the Supreme Court in Rafiq Masih (supra). It is also submitted that prior to initiation of the present recovery proceedings against the petitioners no show cause notice was issued to them nor they were afforded any opportunity of

hearing. The payment which has been made to the petitioners was not due to any fault on their part and the recovery initiated against them is totally illegal and bad in law.

Per contra, learned counsel for respondent No.2 submits that the petitioners were appointed on probation and they were incorrectly paid the stipend for the probation period and it is only that stipend which is being recovered. It is not a case where any recovery is being made on account of any wrong pay fixation or otherwise. The petitioners never had any entitlement for Signature Not Verified Signed by: JYOTI CHOURASIA Signing time: 03-Mar-23 5:35:32 PM

being paid the full amount of stipend during their probation period in view of Rule 13 of Madhya Pradesh Municipal Corporation (Appointment and Conditions of Service of Officers and Servants) Rules, 2020 and in view of Madhya Pradesh Fundamental Rules Vol. I & II.

I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have perused the record. The judgments relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioners were of the stage of final decision of the petition and were not at the initial stage. For the present, it is seen that respondent No.2 has submitted justifiable reasons for making recovery from the petitioners of the amount of stipend incorrectly paid to them for the probation period. As per it, petitioners have been paid

amount to which they were never actually entitled. Moreover, it is seen that even if any recovery is made from the petitioners during pendency of this petition, the same shall obviously be subject to the final decision of the petition and it cannot be said that any irreparable loss would be caused to the petitioners and in case the petition is allowed, they would the entitled for repayment of the amount.

Thus in view of the aforesaid, I do not deem it to be a fit case for grant of interim relief to the petitioners. The prayer for interim relief stands rejected.

List after two weeks.

(PRANAY VERMA) JUDGE

jyoti

Signature Not Verified Signed by: JYOTI CHOURASIA Signing time: 03-Mar-23 5:35:32 PM