Madhya Pradesh High Court
Narendra Singh Rathore vs State Of M.P. Through Principal ... on 21 February, 2024
Author: Vivek Rusia
Bench: Vivek Rusia
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT INDORE
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VIVEK RUSIA
ON THE 21 st OF FEBRUARY, 2024
WRIT PETITION No. 6834 of 2023
BETWEEN:-
NARENDRA SINGH RATHORE S/O SHRI LAXMAN
SINGH, AGE: 63 YEARS, OCCUPATION: RETIRED BLOCK
EDUCATION OFFICER, R/O: 192, PATEL COLONY,
JAORA, DISTRICT RATLAM (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....PETITIONER
(BY SHRI KHEN CHAND RAIKWAR - ADVOCATE.)
AND
1. THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH, THROUGH
PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, SCHOOL EDUCATION
DEPARTMENT, VALLABH BHAWAN, BHOPAL
(MADHYA PRADESH)
2. THE COMMISSIONER, LOK SHIKSHAN
SANCHANALAYA, GAUTAM NAGAR, HOUSING
BOARD COLONY, BHOPAL (MADHYA PRADESH)
3. DISTRICT EDUCATION OFFICER, RATLAM,
DISTRICT RATLAM (MADHYA PRADESH)
4. PR I N CI PAL, GOVT. KAMLA NEHRU GIRLS
HIGHER SECONDARY SCHOOL, JAORA, DISTRICT
RATLAM (MADHYA PRADESH)
5. PRINCIPAL, KATU GOVT. HIGH SCHOOL, JAORA,
DISTRICT RATLAM (MADHYA PRADESH)
6. PR IN CIPAL, GOVT. HIGH SCHOOL, ROJANA,
DISTRICT RATLAM (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....RESPONDENTS
(BY SHRI TARUN KUSHWAH - GOVERNMENT ADVOCATE APPEARING ON
BEHALF OF ADVOCATE GENERAL.)
This petition coming on for admission this day, th e court passed the
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: RAMESH
CHANDRA PITHAWE
Signing time: 2/26/2024
7:46:28 PM
2
following:
ORDER
The petitioner has filed the present petition under Article 226 of
Constitution of India being aggrieved by order dated 26.12.2022 (Annexure P/1)
whereby a recovery of an amount of Rs.4,03,436/- (rupees four lakhs three
thousand four hundred thirty six only) has been ordered against him.
2. The petitioner was an employee of School Education Department. He
retired as Block Education Officer on 31.07.2021. The petitioner while working
as Block Education Officer, Jaora, District Ratlam (M.P.) was having the
drawing and disbursing power and he released leave encashment amount to
eight government teachers, after their retirement which comes to Rs.13,66,076/-
(rupees thirteen lakhs sixty six thousand seventy six only). The District
Education Officer issued a notice to those retired teachers and granted approval
for recovery of an amount of Rs.13,66,076/- out of which an amount of
Rs.9,62,640/- (rupees nine lakhs sixty two thousand six hundred fourty only)
has been recovered from the amount payable to the petitioner under the leave
encashment and directed to deposit remaining amount of Rs.4,03,466/- (rupees
four lakhs three thousand four hundred sixty six only) by way of challan.
Hence, this petition before this Court.
3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the respondents
have illegally held this petitioner responsible for payment of leave encashment to
those teachers and if the Government is unable to recover the amount, the said
amount cannot be recovered from the retiral dues of the petitioner.
4. According to Shri K.C. Raikwar, vide order dated 01.03.2023 (Annexure
P/3), Higher Education Department, Government of Madhya Pradesh has
granted sanction for leave encashment of those teachers who worked from
01.01.2008 to December, 2022. Therefore, even that amount is not liable to be
recovered from those Teachers. Without considering the aforesaid order, the
respondents have illegally recovered the amount from the petitioner.
5. After notice, the respondents have filed reply by submitting that the
petitioner retired from Class-II Officer, therefore, the judgment of The State of
Punjab and others v/s Rafiq Masih (Whitewasher) reported in (2015) 4
SCC 334 will not be applicable in the case of the petitioner. The petitioner has
illegally released the leave encashment amount to eight teachers, without their
entitlement, contrary to circular dated 16.06.2008.
6. Vide order dated 20.04.2016, the Collector has been given powers to call
the Government Employees for fifteen days and Head of Department has been
authorized to call employees for thirty days, but the Drawing and Disbursing
Officer (D.D.O.) is responsible for excess payment from the said account is
liable to be recovered from him, in view of Rule 10 of Madhya Pradesh Finance
Code Part-I.
7. The petitioner was also served with a notice under the provisions of
Madhya Pradesh Civil Services (Classification, Control & Appeal) Rules, 1966
on 15.01.2021. A question was also asked in the Madhya Pradesh State
Legislative Assembly in respect of payment of leave encashment in lieu of
working in leave after 2008. Therefore, the said amount has rightly been
recovered from the petitioner.
8. The respondents have not given any reply to order dated 01.03.2023
whereby a sanction has been granted for Earned Leave from 01.01.2008 to
December, 2022 by the Higher Education Department.
9. Even otherwise, leave encashment amount was paid to eight teachers in
the years 2015, 2016, 2018 and 2019 and the same cannot be recovered in view
of the law laid down Apex Court in the case of Rafique Masih (supra),
therefore, there is no justification for recovering this amount from the petitioner,
who was discharging the official duty of drawing and disbursing power. There
is no allegation that there was a connivance of the petitioner with those teachers
and released excess amount of leave encashment.
10. Therefore, the present petition is allowed and the impugned recovery
order dated 26.12.2022 (Annexure P/1) is hereby quashed, in light of order
dated 01.03.2023. The amount under recovery, if recovered, be refunded back
to the petitioner.
(VIVEK RUSIA)
JUDGE
rcp
