Mukesh Singh Chouhan vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh
2024 Latest Caselaw 5776 MP

Madhya Pradesh High Court

Mukesh Singh Chouhan vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 26 February, 2024

Author: Sanjay Dwivedi

Bench: Sanjay Dwivedi

                                                              1
                                       IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
                                                    AT JABALPUR
                                                       WP No. 3612 of 2024
                                   (MUKESH SINGH CHOUHAN Vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS)

                          Dated : 26-02-2024
                                Shri Atul Kumar RAi - Advocate for the petitioner.

                                Shri Alok Agnihotri - Government Advocate for the respondents/State.

Heard on the question of admission and interim relief. By the instant petition, the petitioner is challenging the orders date 15.07.2019 (Annexure P/1) and 14.10.2019 (Annexure P/2), which are the

orders of proposed recovery of the amount to be made from the petitioner as he has been paid excess amount during fixation of pay.

Learned counsel for the petitioner is assailing the impugned orders on the ground that petitioner is a retired employee and as per the settled law no recovery can be made from a retired employee. He has relied upon the decisions rendered by the coordinate Bench in Madanlal Bardele vs. State of M.P. & others decided on 06.09.2016 and WP No. 8283/2018-Hari Narayan Namdeo vs. The State of Madhya Pradesh & others and other connected petitions decided on 16.08.2023 whereby the coordinate Bench quashed the

order of recovery sought to be made from retired employees.

Learned counsel for the respondents/State has raised an objection about territorial jurisdiction saying that at the relevant point of time the petitioner was posted at Ujjain and at that time the orders of proposed recovery were issued from Ujjain and the petitioner got retired from Ujjain only. According to him, this petition is not maintainable in Jabalpur and as such the same is liable to be dismissed on the ground of territorial jurisdiction.

In rebuttal of the contention raised by the learned counsel for the

respondents regarding maintainability of this petition at Jabalpur, learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance upon a judgment rendered by the Supreme Court in the case of Shanti Devi Alias Shanti Mishra vs. Union of India & Ors-Civil Appeal No. 3630/2020 (Arising out of SLP (C) No. 18375/2018) decided on 05.11.2020 in which the Supreme Court observed that a retired employee, who is receiving pension, cannot be asked to go to another Court to file a writ petition.

Considering the arguments raised by the learned counsel for the parties regarding maintainability of this petition on the ground of territorial jurisdiction, the fact that in the present case also the petitioner is a retired employee and at

present residing at Bhopal within the territorial jurisdiction of this Court and taking note of the law laid down by the Supreme Court in the case of Shanti Devi (Supra) on the issue, this petition cannot be dismissed only on the ground of territorial jurisdiction.

Let notice be issued to the respondents on payment of process fee within three days by registered mode returnable within four weeks.

By way of interim measure, it is directed that if recovery has not already been made from the petitioner so far, no recovery shall be initiated from him in pursuance to orders dated 15.07.2019 (Annexure P/1) and 14.10.2019 (Annexure P/2) till the next date of hearing.

(SANJAY DWIVEDI) JUDGE

RAGHVENDRA