Madhya Pradesh High Court
Doulat Ram Panday vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 1 August, 2024
Author: Anand Pathak
Bench: Anand Pathak
1 WP-17478-2018
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE ANAND PATHAK
ON THE 1 st OF AUGUST, 2024
WRIT PETITION No. 17478 of 2018
DOULAT RAM PANDAY
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Vivek Shukla - Advocate for appellant.
Shri Lalit Joglekar - Government Advocate for respondent/State.
ORDER
This petition under Article 226 of Constitution of India is preferred
seeking following reliefs : -
"(i) To issue a writ in the nature of Mandamus, commanding
respondents to pay the penal interest @ 12 benefits to the petitioner w.e.f. his
retirement date to the date of actual payment.
(ii) To issue a writ in the nature of Mandamus, commanding
respondents to decide petitioner's representation pending before respondent
No. 2 for his legitimate claims.
(iii) To call for the relevant records, for kind perusal of this Hon'ble
Court;
(iv) Any other relief deemed fit on facts and circumstances of the
instant case."
2. Precisely stated facts of the case are that petitioner retired from the
post of Head Constable from the Police Department w.e.f. 31.07.2011. While
2 WP-17478-2018
settling his retiral dues Rs.50,988/- was recovered from his post retiral
payments which was challenged by the petitioner before this court. This
court vide order dated 02.01.2014 passed in W.P. No. 22163/2013 allowed
the petition and direction was given to the respondents to decide the case of
petitioner keeping in view the grounds on which the amount has been
recovered. Thereafter, when representation was rejected then petitioner filed
another petition vide W.P. No.18602/2014 in which order dated 29.07.2016
was passed in view of the judgment of Apex Court in the case of State of
Punjab & Ors. vs. Rafiq Masih (White Washer) (2015) 4 SCC 344,
and recovery was quashed. Thereafter, within a year respondents have paid
the recovered amount Rs.50,988/-. Now petitioner is seeking interest over
delayed payment. Therefore, this petition has been filed.
3. It is the submission of learned counsel for the petitioner that in the
year 2011 petitioner retired and in the year 2017 he got his legitimate dues of
Rs.50,988/- which were recovered from his pension fund/gratuity, therefore,
he is entitled for interest thereon.
4. Learned counsel for respondents opposed the prayer and submits
that the petitioner is not entitled to receive interest because during the
pendency of the petition, no delay has been caused because matter was
pending. After order is being passed within one year, payment has been made
as per prevailing laws. When his case was decided in 2016, the petitioner got
within year benefit of repayment.
5. Heard.
6. Interestingly, respondents recovered from petitioner amount of
3 WP-17478-2018
Rs.50,988/- only on the basis that excess amount has been paid. That excess
amount has been paid to the petitioner because of wrong fixation of pay. In
other words because of casualness or carelessness of Ministerial staff pay
fixation was wrongly done and benefit was in the form of receiving amount
of Rs.50,988/- in excess of his legitimate claims. In fact public money which
was otherwise ought to have been utilized by the State for public welfare
measures was paid to the petitioner because of the hardships likely to be
faced by him if recovery is made. Now petitioner is seeking interest over that
delayed payment which was never the legitimate dues of petitioner.
Therefore, if petition is allowed then it would give undue premium to the
cause of petitioner gaining unjust enrichment, such benefit cannot be
extended. Even otherwise under the Interest Act of 1978, it does not fall
under situations referred under Sections 3 and 4 in specific terms so as to
show indulgence. Petitioner is not entitled to get interest over instant
delayed payment, that too paid within a year after litigation is over.
7. Petition sans merit is hereby dismissed.
(ANAND PATHAK)
JUDGE
vkv
