Vishnu Prasad Shukla vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh
2024 Latest Caselaw 15224 MP

Madhya Pradesh High Court

Vishnu Prasad Shukla vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 21 May, 2024

Author: Vishal Dhagat

Bench: Vishal Dhagat

                                                            1
                                 IN    THE        HIGH COURT OF MADHYA
                                                      PRADESH
                                                    AT JABALPUR
                                                    BEFORE
                                      HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VISHAL DHAGAT
                                                ON THE 21 st OF MAY, 2024
                                            WRIT PETITION No. 16316 of 2016

                           BETWEEN:-
                           VISHNU PRASAD SHUKLA S/O LATE SHRI GOKUL
                           PRASAD SHUKLA, AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS,
                           VILLAGE SIGTI POST (MADHYA PRADESH)

                                                                                       .....PETITIONER
                           (BY SHRI NILESH KOTECHA - ADVOCATE AND MS. SULEKHA
                           SHARMA - ADVOCATE)

                           AND
                           1.    THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH
                                 T H R O U G H ITS SECRETARY DEPT. OF
                                 FOREST MANTRALAYA, VALLABH BHAWAN,
                                 BHOPAL (MADHYA PRADESH)

                           2.    DISTRICT  FOREST    OFFICER FOREST
                                 D EPARTM EN T DISTT. REWA (MADHYA
                                 PRADESH)

                           3.    DISTRICT PENSION OFFICER DIRECTORATE
                                 OF    PENSION DISTT. REWA (MADHYA
                                 PRADESH)

                                                                                    .....RESPONDENTS
                           (BY SHRI SUBODH KATHAR - GOVERNMENT ADVOCATE)

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

Petitioner has filed this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India challenging recovery order dated 15.05.2015 (Anneure-P/3) by

which recovery of Rs.4,22,255/- is made against the petitioner.

2. It is submitted by Learned counsel appearing for petitioner that no opportunity of hearing was provided to petitioner before passing the impugned order. Case of petitioner is covered by the judgment passed by the Apex Court in case of State of Punjab and Ors. Vs. Rafiq Masih (White Washer), reported in (2015) 4 SCC 334. Petitioner is a Class-III employee and recovery from year 1999 is made against petitioner which is impermissible in law. Petitioner is put in iniquitous position by said recovery.

3. Learned Government Advocate appearing for the State opposed the petition and submitted that petitioner has given an indemnity bond

which is filed as Annexure-R/2 along with the petition. Since, petitioner has furnished indemnity bond, therefore, respondents can recover the amount in accordance with judgment passed by the Full Bench in WA No.815/2017.

4. Heard the counsel for the parties and perused the Annexure-R/2.

5. Indemnity bond is furnished by the petitioner in respect of fixation of pensionary benefits pursuant to his retirement. Respondents are making recovery in respect of amount from year 1999 much before the date of petitioner's retirement. Indemnity bond is not furnished by petitioner for purposes of recovery to be done from year 1999. There was no misrepresentation or inducement on part of petitioner to which excess payment has been made to petition.

6. In view of same impugned order dated 15.05.2015 (Anneure-P/3)

is quashed. An amount of Rs.4,22,255/- be returned to petitioner within 15 days from today, failing which said amount will carry interest @ 8% per annum.

7. Petition filed by petitioner is disposed off.

(VISHAL DHAGAT) JUDGE $A