Dr. R.S. Shrivastava vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh
2024 Latest Caselaw 13329 MP

Madhya Pradesh High Court

Dr. R.S. Shrivastava vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 9 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 9 th OF MAY, 2024
                                           WRIT PETITION No. 24658 of 2018

                         BETWEEN:-
                         DR. R.S. SHRIVASTAVA S/O LATE RAGHUNATH PRASAD
                         SHRIVASTAVA, AGED ABOUT 72 YEARS, OCCUPATION:
                         RETIRED AS AYURVED CHIKITSA ADHIKARI SHAKTI
                         NAGAR JABALPUR (MADHYA PRADESH)

                                                                                    .....PETITIONER
                         (BY SHRI BHUVNESH SHARMA - ADVOCATE)

                         AND
                         1.    THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH THR. THE
                               PRINCIPAL SECRETARY MINISTRY OF MEDICAL
                               EDUCATION MANTRALAYA BHOPAL (MADHYA
                               PRADESH)

                         2.    THE COMMISSIONER DIRECTORATE OF INDIAN
                               SYSTEMS OF MEDICINE AND HOMEOPATHY
                               SATPURA BHAWAN BHOPAL (MADHYA PRADESH)

                         3.    THE PRINCIPAL GOVERNMENT AUTONOMOUS
                               AYURVE     COLLEGE JABALPUR  (MADHYA
                               PRADESH)

                         4.    THE SENIOR DISTRICT TREASURY OFFICER
                               JABALPUR COLLECTORATE JABALPUR (MADHYA
                               PRADESH)

                                                                                 .....RESPONDENTS
                         (BY SHRI PIYUSH BHATNAGAR - PANEL LAWYER)

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

I.A.No.5732/2024 under Order XXII Rule 9 of the C.P.C is dismissed as

withdrawn.

Learned Panel Lawyer for the State submits that the recovery is with regard to the House Loan Advance, Medical Advance and the Car Loan Advance obtained by the petitioner and not on account of pay fixation, therefore, the decision of Full Bench of this High Court in Writ Appeal No.815/2017 (State of Madhya Pradesh & Others versus Jagdish Prasad Dubey) & Other allied matters on 6.3.3024 has no application to the facts and circumstances of the present case.

It is evident from Annexure P/2 that a communication was made by the Principal of Government Autonomous Ayurved Mahavidyalaya Avam

Chikitsalaya, Jabalpur to the Treasury Officer, District Treasury (Pension), Jabalpur that the petitioner had obtained Medical Advance of Rs.1,72,800/- and the House Building Advance of Rs.1,26,000/- and those amounts have been recovered from the gratuity of the petitioner.

Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that after nine years, such recovery could not have been made from the petitioner.

Learned counsel for the petitioner is not in a position to bring on record any provision of law to show that the aforesaid loan advances will lapse and right to recovery will stand forfeited if recovery was not made in time. Infact, all the loan advances were required to be paid by the petitioner in time and, therefore, since the petitioner was aware of the fact that he had taken loan advances and it was his responsibility to have informed the drawing and disbursing authority to deduct those loan advances in installments or repay the same in time, the petitioner now cannot take advance of his own fault. These recoveries being different from the recovery, which is subject matter of Writ Appeal No.815/2017 (State of Madhya Pradesh & Others versus Jagdish

Prasad Dubey) & Other allied matters on 6.3.3024, therefore, that ratio of law of the judgment in State of Madhya Pradesh & Others versus Jagdish Prasad Dubey (supra) will not have any application to the facts and circumstances of the present case. If the loan advances were taken by the petitioner then he was required to refund it in time. It is a public money, which cannot be allowed to be squandered. Such recovery from his gratuity cannot be said to be illegal and arbitrary.

At this stage, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that no objection was given.

If no objection was given erroneously, that will not curtail the right of the department to make recovery especially when the petitioner is not in a position to show that the petitioner had already paid the loan advances drawn by him. The indifference on the part of the petitioner cannot be allowed to be perpetuated on the basis of technicalities and, therefore, the loan advances are required to be adjusted and they have rightly been adjusted by the authorities. No fault can be attributed to authorities.

Accordingly, this writ petition fails and is dismissed.

(VIVEK AGARWAL) JUDGE amit