Madhya Pradesh High Court
The State Of Madhya Pradesh vs Jagannath Singh Solanki on 21 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 21 st OF MAY, 2024
WRIT APPEAL No. 1171 of 2024
BETWEEN:-
1. THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH, THROUGH
PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, REVENUE
DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT OF MADHYA
PRADESH, VALLABH BHAWAN, BHOPAL
(MADHYA PRADESH)
2. THE COLLECTOR (LAND RECORDS)
COLLECTORATE INDORE (MADHYA PRADESH)
3. THE SUPERINTENDENT LAND RECORD,
COLLECTORATE, INDORE (MADHYA PRADESH)
4. DIVISIONAL PENSION OFFICER, DISTRICT
PENSION OFFICE, INDORE (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....APPELLANTS
(SHRI BHUWAN GAUTAM, GOVERNMENT ADVOCATE FOR THE
APPELLANTS/STATE).
AND
JAGANNATH SINGH SOLANKI S/O LATE SHRI SATAN
SINGH SOLANKI, AGED 62 YEARS, OCCUPATION:
RETIRED, 44 GOPUR COLONY, INDORE (MADHYA
PRADESH)
.....RESPONDENT
This appeal coming on for admission this day, Justice Sushrut Arvind
Dharmadhikari passed the following:
JUDGMENT
Heard on I.A.No. 4149/2024, application for condonation of delay.
For the reasons stated in the application, the same is allowed. Delay of 78 days
in filing the appeal is hereby condoned.
2 . This Intra Court appeal takes an exception to the order dated 30.11.2023,
passed by the learned Single Judge in Writ Petition No. 21197 of 2022, whereby the
recovery from the respondent/petitioner has been set aside along with interest @ 6%
per annum.
3. The brief facts of the case are that the respondent/petitioner was serving on
the post of Revenue Inspector and after completion of 32 years of service, one year
before attaining the age of superannuation, got voluntary retirement on 31.08.2021. On
01.09.2022, a recovery order to the tune of Rs. 4,15,749/- was issued against the
respondent/petitioner to be deducted from his gratuity on the objection raised by the
Divisional Pension Officer/respondent No.4 for the excess of salary paid to the
respondent/petitioner from 30.06.1996 to 01.12.2015 (19 years).
4. Respondent/petitioner challenged the aforesaid order on the ground that no
recovery was ordered till his retirement i.e. within 6 years and after retirement, the
order of recovery of Rs. 2,72,483/- along with interest of Rs. 1,43,266/- (total Rs.
4,15,749/-) has been issued. The learned Single Judge allowed the writ petition relying
on the judgment passed by the Apex Court in case of State of Punjab and Ors. Vs.
Rafiq Masih (White Washer), (2015) 4 SCC 334. Being aggrieved by the order
impugned, appellants have filed this appeal.
5 . Learned counsel for the appellants/State submitted that the at the time of
preparing the pension papers of the respondent/petitioner, it was revealed that during
his service period, due to some miscalculation in fixation of pay in respect of 5 th Pay
Commission, the excess amount of payment was made to the respondent/petitioner
from 30.06.1996 to 01.12.2015 for which he was not entitled. Therefore, considering
the objection raised by the District Pension Officer, the recovery was directed to be
made.
6. Learned counsel for the appellant placing reliance on the subsequent
judgment passed by the Apex Court in the case of High Court of Punjab & Haryana
& others Vs. Jagdev Singh, (2016) 14 SCC 267 submitted that the recovery could
have been made from the respondent/petitioner. Hence, the order impugned deserves
to be set aside.
7. Heard learned counsel for the appellants. Perused the impugned order.
8. It is not in disputed that the respondent/petitioner is a retired employee who
was holding a Class-III post. Further, the recovery has been directed to be effected
from the year 1996. Hence his case is covered by the judgment of Rafiq Masih
(supra), the principles laid down in the said case would be applicable in the present
case. The judgment passed in the case of Jagdev Singh (supra) was on a different set
of facts. In the said case, the employee had given an undertaking that any excess
amount which may be found to have been paid will be refunded to the Government
either by adjustment against future payment due or otherwise. In the present case, the
appe llants have failed to bring on record any undertaking given by the
respondent/petitioner in this regard. Further they have failed to point out any
suppression or misrepresentation of facts on the part of employee to get benefit of
time scale of pay.
9 . In view of the aforesaid submissions, we do not find any error in the order
passed by the learned Single Judge warranting reconsideration. Accordingly, finding no
ground to interfere into the matter, this appeal i s dismissed at the admission stage
itself.
(S. A. DHARMADHIKARI) (GAJENDRA SINGH)
JUDGE JUDGE
vidya
