Madhya Pradesh High Court
Lalmani Vishwakarma vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 7 August, 2024
1 WP-25532-2019
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VIVEK JAIN
ON THE 7 th OF AUGUST, 2024
WRIT PETITION No. 25532 of 2019
MATRI PRASAD GAUTAM
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Harshwardhan Singh - Advocate for the petitioner.
Ms. Supriya Singh - Dy. Govt. Advocate for the respondents / State.
WITH
WRIT PETITION No. 25551 of 2019
LALMANI VISHWAKARMA
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Harshwardhan Singh - Advocate for the petitioner.
Ms. Supriya Singh - Dy. Govt. Advocate for the respondents / State.
WRIT PETITION No. 28416 of 2019
RAKESH KUMAR PANDEY AND OTHERS
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Harshwardhan Singh - Advocate for the petitioner.
Ms. Supriya Singh - Dy. Govt. Advocate for the respondents / State.
ORDER
The present petitions involved similitude of facts and controversy
involved and the impugned order of recovery dated 15.11.2019 is one and the
2 WP-25532-2019
same for all the petitioners, these petitions are heard and being decided by
this common order. IA No.5580/2024 has been filed for substitution of legal
representatives in WP No. 25551/2019. The said application is allowed and
let necessary correction be made within seven days from today.
2. For the sake of convenience the facts and referred documents are
taken from WP No.25532/2019.
3. The petitioners before this Court are working on the post of drivers
in the work-charged establishment in the Department of Water Resources.
They were granted benefit of financial upgradation in terms with policy of
the State Government to provide financial upgradation/Samayman Vetanman
on completion of 10 years and 20 years of service respectively. The said
benefits were granted to the petitioners with effect from January, 2006.
4. The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that said benefits
were awarded to the petitioners without any misrepresentation on part of the
petitioners and no undertaking was taken from the petitioners while awarding
said benefits of Samayman Vetanman from January, 2006. It is contended
that the recovery has been ordered in the year 2019 after the petitioners have
drawn the upgraded salary for almost 13 years. The petitioners are work-
charged drivers and are holders of low paid Class-III posts. They are not
even in regular establishment . Thus, the recovery order against the
petitioners may be quashed.
5. Per Contra, learned counsel for the State submits that the
petitioners were not covered under the policy of Samayman Vetanman and
Signaturethe
Not benefits
Verified were erroneously granted to the petitioners. By further placing
Signed by: NAVEEN
KUMAR SARATHE
Signing time: 10-08-2024
11.45.40 AM
3 WP-25532-2019
reliance on the judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of High Court of
Punjab & Haryana Vs. Jagdev Sing passed in Civil Appeal. No. 3500/2006 ,
it is contended that the petitioners have given undertakings which are placed
on record with the reply. Thus, it is contended that petitioners are not entitled
to avoid the recovery orders against them.
5. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
6. Upon perusal of the documents placed on record and upon
consideration of the rival contentions, it is evident that the State has not
come out with any case that the petitioners were granted benefits of first and
second Samayman Ventanman in the year 2006 on basis of any
misrepresentation made by the petitioners. There is no denial to the fact that
petitioners are work-charged drivers and are very low paid class-III
employees and they have been getting the benefits from 2006-2019.
7. So far as aspect of undertaking is concerned, the said undertakings
which are placed on record with the reply are in the matter of pay revision of
the petitioners in accordance with the the pay revision rules of 1998, 2009
and 2017. The said pay revision Rules were as a consequence of 5th, 6th and
7th Pay Commission recommendations and the said pay revisions have
nothing to do with grant of benefits of financial upgradation on completion
of 10 years and 20 years of service under the policy of granting financial
upgradation/Samayman Vetanman. Thus, this Court is of the opinion that no
benefit can be withdrawn by the State Government on the strength of
undertaking placed on record with the reply.
4 WP-25532-2019
and (v) of the judgment of Hon'ble Court in the case of State of Punjab and
Others Vs. Rafiq Masih (White Washer) and Others reported in (2015) 4
SCC 334.because the petitioners are employees working on Class-III post on
work-charged establishment and they have drawn the benefits for a long
period without any misrepresentation on their part and the recovery of such
an amount after such a long period would be inequitable to such employees.
9. Consequently, the petitions are allowed and the order (Annexure
P-5) dated 15.11.2019 is quashed. In case any amount has already been
recovered from the petitioners in terms of aforesaid order, then the said
amount be refunded to the petitoioners within a period of 3 months from
today failing which the amount shall carry interest of 6% per annum from the
date of this order.
(VIVEK JAIN)
JUDGE
nks
