Madhya Pradesh High Court

The State Of Madhya Pradesh vs Ramrati Pandey on 1 May, 2024

Author: Sushrut Arvind Dharmadhikari

Bench: Sushrut Arvind Dharmadhikari

                                                           1
                            IN     THE     HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
                                                 AT INDORE
                                                   BEFORE
                            HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE SUSHRUT ARVIND DHARMADHIKARI
                                                      &
                                   HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE GAJENDRA SINGH
                                                 ON THE 1 st OF MAY, 2024
                                              WRIT APPEAL No. 1000 of 2024

                           BETWEEN:-
                           THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH CHIEF SECRETARY
                           VALLABH BHAWAN, BHOPAL (MADHYA PRADESH)

                                                                                      .....APPELLANT
                           (BY SHRI BHUWAN GAUTAM - GOVT. ADVOCATE)

                           AND
                           1.    RAMRATI PANDEY W/O LT. SANTOSH PANDEY,
                                 AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS, E-7, POLICE LINE, DEWAS
                                 (MADHYA PRADESH)

                           2.    THE DIRECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE POLICE
                                 HEAD QURTERS, JAHANGIRABAD, BHOPAL
                                 (MADHYA PRADESH)

                           3.    THE   SUPERINTENDENT   OF           POLICE NOT
                                 MENTION (MADHYA PRADESH)

                           4.    DISTRICT PENSION OFFICER DEWAS (MADHYA
                                 PRADESH)

                                                                                   .....RESPONDENTS


                                 This appeal coming on for admission this day, Justice Sushrut Arvind
                           Dharmadhikari passed the following:
                                                            ORDER

Heard on IA No. 3464 of 2024, which is an application for condonation of delay.

For the reasons stated in the application, delay of 87 days is hereby condoned.

02. The appeal is also heard on the question of admission.

03. The present writ appeal under Section 2(1) of Madhya Pradesh Uchha Nyayalaya (Khand Nyaypeeth Ko Appeal) Adhiniyam, 2005 assails the o rd er dated 01.11.2023, passed in W.P. No.18018/2020 which has been allowed in the light of Apex Court judgment rendered in the case of State of Punjab vs. Rafiq Masih reported in (2015) 4 SCC 334.

04. The learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the recovery was initiated on account of excess payment made in the basic salary to the

respondent/employee at the time of pay fixation of the petitioner during the period 1996-1997 and thereafter. However, the respondent's husband has been granted the said benefit during his service tenure by mistake, therefore, the recovery was ordered.

05. The learned Single Judge while allowing the writ petition did not consider the fact that an undertaking was submitted by the husband of the respondent, therefore, State is entitled to recover the amount. He further stated that the issue with regard to undertaking is still pending before the Principal Seat of this Court, therefore, the order impugned deserves to be set aside.

06. On perusal of the record of the writ petition as well as the undertaking given by the husband of the respondent (Annexure-R/3) filed along with the reply, the said undertaking was taken on 04.10.2017 which admittedly is not in respect of the increment granted in the year 1996 which also has no retrospective applicability. Therefore, the contention of the learned counsel for the appellant cannot be accepted.

07. In view of the aforesaid, this Court is of the considered opinion that

the learned Single Judge has passed the order, in accordance with law. We do not find any error apparent on the face of the record to interfere with the order passed by the learned Single Judge. Accordingly, the appeal being bereft of merit and substance is, hereby, dismissed.

                                (S. A. DHARMADHIKARI)                               (GAJENDRA SINGH)
                                         JUDGE                                            JUDGE
                           VS