Mahabir Singh Rawat vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh
2023 Latest Caselaw 16271 MP

                                                               1
                                       IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
                                                    AT GWALIOR
                                                       WP No. 24840 of 2023
                                     (MAHABIR SINGH RAWAT Vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS)

                           Dated : 04-10-2023
                                 Shri B.P. Singh - Advocate for the petitioner.

                                 Shri M.S. Jadoun - 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 12.05.2023 (Annexure P/1) and the order dated 11.05.2023 (Annexure P/2), whereby the petitioner has been directed to deposit a sum of Rs.17,40,929/- 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 June, 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 i n 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 and Annexure P/2 are per se illegal. Thus, he prayed for stay of the recovery as well as had sought direction for grant of anticipatory pension Signature Not Verified Signed by: RASHID KHAN Signing time: 04-10-2023 07:12:52 PM

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 11.11.2022 and 08.06.2023 (Annexures P/1 and P/2) by which the recovery of Rs.30,32,018/- has been directed to be initiated against the petitioner. As a consequence thereof, the stoppage of anticipatory pension also appears to be prima facie n o t 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

Rashid

Signature Not Verified Signed by: RASHID KHAN Signing time: 04-10-2023 07:12:52 PM