Madhya Pradesh High Court
Paramsukh Patel vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 11 October, 2023
Author: Gurpal Singh Ahluwalia
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE GURPAL SINGH AHLUWALIA
ON THE 11 th OF OCTOBER, 2023
WRIT PETITION No. 4956 of 2019
BETWEEN:-
PARAMSUKH PATEL S/O LATE SHRI BHOOKHAN
PRATAP PATEL, AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS, RETIRED
FROM ROLER DRIVER IN P.W.D. REWA (M.P.), R/O.
VILLAGE KHUJ, POST RAIPUR KARCHULIYAN,
DISTRICT-REWA (MADHYA PRADESH).
.....PETITIONER
(BY SHRI K.L. PANDEY AND SHRI P.S. CHOUHAN - ADVOCATE )
AND
1. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH THROUGH THE
SECRETARY, PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT,
VALLABH BHAWAN, BHOPAL (MADHYA
PRADESH).
2. THE COMMISSIONER, REWA DIVISION REWA
(MADHYA PRADESH).
3. THE COLLECTOR, REWA, DISTRICT- REWA
(MADHYA PRADESH).
4. THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, PUBLIC WORKS
DEPARTMENT DIVISION NO. 1, REWA (MADHYA
PRADESH).
5. SUB DIVISIONAL OFFICER, PUBLIC WORKS
D EPARTM EN T, SUB DIVISION MANGAWAN,
DISTRICT-REWA (MADHYA PRADESH).
6. DISTRICT TREASURY OFFICER, REWA DISTRICT-
REWA (MADHYA PRADESH).
.....RESPONDENTS
(BY SHRI ANSHUL TIWARI - PANEL LAWYER FOR THE
RESPONDENT/STATE )
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: RASHMI
TIKARAM CHIKANE
Signing time: 10/12/2023
2:39:56 PM
2
This petition coming on for admission. this day, the court passed the
following:
ORDER
This petition under Article 226 of Constitution of India has been filed
seeking the following reliefs :
"(i) To quash the impugned recovery order dated 31.07.2017
(Annexure P/2) passed by Respondent No.5.
(ii) To call the entire service record of petitioner for kind
perusal of this Hon'ble Court.
(iii) The Hon'ble Court be pleased to direct the respondents
the recovery of any excess amount alleged to have been paid
to the petitioner hereby quashed if any amount is recovered
from the salary/pension of the petitioner, the same be refund
back with interest.
(iv) Any other relief/order/writ as deemed fit under the facts
and circumstances of the case, including cost of the litigation
also awarded to the petitioner."
2. It is submitted by counsel for the petitioner that he was working on
the post of Roler Driver in PWD. He stood superannuated on 31.07.2017. By
the impugned order a recovery of Rs.3,61,627/- has been directed against the
petitioner. According to the chart provided by the petitioner which has been
filed along with rejoinder, out of total amount of Rs.3,61,627/-, the principal
amount is Rs.2,20,785/- and an interest of Rs.1,40,842/- has been added. It is
also mentioned that out of the aforesaid amount Rs.56,434/- has already been
recovered and accordingly it was held that an amount of Rs.3,44,693/- is
recoverable. It is submitted that since the petitioner was holding a Class-IV post
and the salary was paid without there being any misrepresentation on the part of
the petitioner, therefore, the recovery of the aforesaid amount is bad in the light
of judgment passed by the Supreme Court in the case of State of Punjab &
Others Vs. Rafiq Masih (Whitewasher) reported in (2015) 4 SCC 334.
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: RASHMI
TIKARAM CHIKANE
Signing time: 10/12/2023
2:39:56 PM
3. Per contra, the petition is vehemently opposed by counsel for the
State. It is submitted that an undertaking was given by the petitioner at the time
of re-fixation of pay in the light of Pay Revision Rules, 1990. However, he fairly
conceded that this undertaking is undated. It is further submitted that at the time
of retirement, the petitioner has also given his undertaking that any amount paid
in excess to his entitlement, can be recovered. Accordingly, it is submitted that
the judgment passed by the Supreme Court in the case of High Court of
Punjab and Haryana and others Vs. Jagdev Singh reported in (2016) 14
SCC 267 shall apply and the recovery has been rightly done.
4. Heard the learned counsel for the parties.
5. It is not the case of the respondents that any excess payment was
erroneously made to the petitioner on account of any misrepresentation on his
part. Therefore, this Court is of the considered opinion that recovery of an
interest of Rs.1,40,842/- is bad in law. Accordingly, it is quashed.
6. So far as recovery of principal amount of Rs.2,20,785/- is concerned,
it is the case of the respondents that aforesaid excess payment was made after
an undertaking was obtained from the petitioner. However, respondents have
not filed any document to show that any undertaking was given by the petitioner
for refund of any erroneous payment made with effect from 01.01.2006. The
undertaking which has been relied upon by the respondents appears to be in
relation to some previous payment which were made to petitioner but not in
relation to payment made to the petitioner with effect from 01.01.2006.
According to the chart which has been filed along with the rejoinder it appears
that erroneous payment was made on account of wrong fixation at the time of
extending the benefit of 6th Pay Commission.
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: RASHMI
TIKARAM CHIKANE
Signing time: 10/12/2023
2:39:56 PM
7. Be that whatever it may be.
8. Since the respondents could not point out that any undertaking was
given by the petitioner at the time of erroneous fixation of pay i.e. 01.01.2006,
this Court is of the considered opinion that the law laid down by the Supreme
Court in the case of Jagdev Singh (supra) has no application to the facts and
circumstances of the case. Accordingly, it is held the case in hand is duly
covered by the law laid down by the Supreme Court in the case of Rafiq
Masih (supra). Accordingly, the recovery of Rs.2,20,785/- towards principal
amount is also bad and accordingly it is quashed.
9. It appears that the respondents have already recovered an amount of
Rs.56,934/-. It is further submitted by counsel for the petitioner that the entire
amount has already been recovered from the petitioner. Therefore, it is directed
that the recovery made by the respondents shall be refunded back to the
petitioner within a period of one month from today, otherwise the said amount
shall carry an interest at the rate of 6% till final payment is made.
10. With the observation, the petition is allowed.
(G.S. AHLUWALIA)
JUDGE
RC
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: RASHMI
TIKARAM CHIKANE
Signing time: 10/12/2023
2:39:56 PM
