Madhya Pradesh High Court

Shardaprsadrai vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 3 May, 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 3 rd OF MAY, 2024
                                             WRIT PETITION No. 14038 of 2022

                           BETWEEN:-
                           SHARDAPRSADRAI S/O LATE SHRI HARIRAM RAI,
                           AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS, OCCUPATION: RETIRED
                           GOVERNMENT            EMPLOYEE        R/O
                           SANKARACHARYAWARD NARSINGHPUR DISTRICT
                           NARSINGHPUR M.P. (MADHYA PRADESH)

                                                                                      .....PETITIONER
                           (NONE)

                           AND
                           1.    THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH THROUGH ITS
                                 SECRETARY     PANCHAYAT   AND    RURAL
                                 DEVELOPMENT      DEPARTMENT    VALLABH
                                 BHAWAN BHOPAL DISTRICT BHOPAL M.P.
                                 (MADHYA PRADESH)

                           2.    THE JOINT DIRECTOR, LOCAL FUND AUDIT
                                 BLOCK NO. 9, CIVIL CENTRE, MADHATAL,
                                 JABALPUR (MADHYA PRADESH)

                           3.    THE   CHIEF EXECUTIVE     OFFICER, JANPAD
                                 PANCHAYAT,         NARSINGHPUR DISTRICT
                                 NARSINGHPUR M.P. (MADHYA PRADESH)

                                                                                    .....RESPONDENTS
                           (SHRI DARSHAN SONI - GOVERNMENT ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENTS
                           NO. 1 AND 2.)

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

Petitioner is aggrieved of order dated 08.06.2021, passed by the Joint Director, Local Fund Audit, M.P., notifying that the pay fixation which was

carried out in case of the petitioner in terms of Fifth Pay Commission Recommendations w.e.f. 01.01.1996 and Sixth Pay Commission Recommendations w.e.f. 01.01.2006, being contrary to the Government orders. Therefore, the payment made to him is liable to be recovered along with compound interest @ 12% p.a. and accordingly, recovery of sum of Rs.16,53,445/- (Rupees Sixteen Lacs, Fifty Three Thousand, Four Hundred and Forty Five) is proposed out of which a sum of Rs.8,89,930/- (Rupees Eight Lacs, Eighty Nine Thousand, Nine Hundred and Thirty), was recovered from the dues of earned leave and gratuity and recovery of Rs.7,63,515/- (Rupees Seven Lacs, Sixty Three Thousand, Five Hundred and Fifteen), was proposed

by the Chief Executive Officer, Janpad Panchayat, Narsinghpur.

Respondents have filed their reply and have enclosed an undertaking given by the petitioner dated 06.03.2009 in regard to Pay Revision Rules of 2008, effective from 01.01.2006.

Thus, it is clear that in terms of the judgment of Full Bench of this High Court in Writ Appeal No.815/2017, recovery w.e.f. 01.01.2006 can be sustained, but no recovery prior to that in absence of any bond/undertaking in regard to payment of salary under Fifth Pay Commission Recommendations or prior to that, be sustained in the eyes of law.

Accordingly, petition is allowed in part. Recovery in relation to Fifth Pay Commission Recommendations made effective from 01.01.1996 till 31.12.2005, is hereby quashed. Respondents are directed to recalculate the amount of recovery w.e.f. 01.01.2006 to 31.12.2015 and will be entitled to recover only that much amount from the petitioner. If there is any excess recovery, then the same be refunded to the petitioner along with 8% interest per annum from the date of recovery till the date of actual payment.

Let above exercise be carried out within forty five days of receipt of certified copy of this order.

In above terms, petition is disposed of.

(VIVEK AGARWAL) JUDGE A.Praj.