Smt. Geeta Gupta vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh
2024 Latest Caselaw 14 MP

Madhya Pradesh High Court

Smt. Geeta Gupta vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 2 January, 2024

Author: Vivek Agarwal

Bench: Vivek Agarwal

                                                           1
                          IN     THE      HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
                                               AT JABALPUR
                                                    BEFORE
                                      HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VIVEK AGARWAL
                                             ON THE 2 nd OF JANUARY, 2024
                                           WRIT PETITION No. 10730 of 2022

                         BETWEEN:-
                         SMT. GEETA GUPTA W/O SHRI BABULAL GUPTA, AGED
                         ABOUT 61 YEARS, OCCUPATION: WORKING AS ANM
                         POSTED AT SUB HEALTH CENTRE RAJAUA PRIMARY
                         HEALTH CENTRE SHAHPUR HEAD OFFICE CHIEF
                         MEDICAL AND HEALTH OFFICER SAGAR DISTT. SAGAR
                         R/O BEHIND DWARIKA VIHAR, TILI WARD, SAGAR
                         DISTRICT SAGAR (MADHYA PRADESH)

                                                                                       .....PETITIONER
                         (BY SHRI MANOJ KUMAR CHANSAURIYA - ADVOCATE)

                         AND
                         1.    THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH THROUGH ITS
                               SECRETARY PUBLIC HEALTH AND FAMILY
                               WELFARE DEPARTMENT MINISTRY VALLABH
                               BHAWAN BHOPAL (MADHYA PRADESH)

                         2.    JOINT DIRECTOR TREASURY ACCOUNTS AND
                               PENSION SAGAR DIVISION SAGAR M.P. (MADHYA
                               PRADESH)

                         3.    CHIEF MEDICAL AND HEALTH OFFICER SAGAR
                               DISTRICT SAGAR M.P. (MADHYA PRADESH)

                                                                                    .....RESPONDENTS
                         (BY SHRI ANOOP SONKAR - PANEL LAWYER FOR THE STATE)

                               This petition coming on for admission this day, th e court passed the
                         following:
                                                            ORDER

This petition is filed by the petitioner, who was working as ANM which is a Class III post at Sub Health Centre, Rajaua, Primary Health Center, Shahpur,

District Sagar being aggrieved of order dated 15.09.2020,Annexure P-4, whereby recovery has been ordered against the petitioner on account of clerical mistake in pay fixation.

It is submitted that such recovery is not permissible. There is no undertaking of the petitioner permitting such recovery and, therefore. in the light of the law laid down by Hon'ble Supreme Court in Thomas Daniel Vs. State of Kerala and Others, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 438, order of recovery is assailed.

Shri Anoop Sonkar, learned Panel Lawyer for the State supports the impugned order.

After hearing learned counsel for the parties and going through the record, ratio of law laid down by Hon'ble Supreme Court in Thomas Denial (supra) is that if the excess amount was not paid on account of any misrepresentation or fraud of the employee or if such excess payment was made by the employer by applying a wrong principle for calculating the pay/allowance or on the basis of a particular interpretation of rule/order which is subsequently found to be erroneous, such excess payment of emoluments or allowances are not recoverable.

Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that this relief against the recovery is granted not because of any right of the employees but in equity, exercising judicial discretion to provide relief to the employees from the hardship that will be caused if the recovery is ordered.

Reliance is placed on the judgments of Supreme Court in Sahib Ram Vs. The State of Haryana and Others, 1995 Supp(1) SCC 18, State of Punjab and Others Vs. Rafiq Masih (White Washer) and Others, (2015) 4 SCC 334 and Col. B.J. Akkara (Retd) v. Govt of India, (2006) 11 SCC

709. I am in agreement with the said decision of the Supreme Court which is binding on a High Court and petitioner being a Class III employee, such recovery cannot be sustained in the eyes of law because admittedly respondents could not point out from record that there was any fraud or misrepresentation on the part of the petitioner.

Accordingly, impugned order of recovery is quashed. Petition is allowed and disposed. Recovered amount be returned back to the petitioner within a period of thirty days from the date receipt of certified copy of the order being passed today along with 8% interest thereon from the date of recovery till the date of actual payment.

Certified copy as per rules.

(VIVEK AGARWAL) JUDGE Tabish