Madhya Pradesh High Court
The State Of Madhya Pradesh vs Mahesh Rewal on 17 June, 2025
Author: Vivek Rusia
Bench: Vivek Rusia
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:14296
1 WA-204-2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT INDORE
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VIVEK RUSIA
&
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE BINOD KUMAR DWIVEDI
ON THE 17th OF JUNE, 2025
WRIT APPEAL No. 204 of 2024
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
Versus
MAHESH REWAL
Appearance:
Shri Sudeep Bhargava - Dy. Advocate General for the appellant /
State.
Shri Vijay Gulani - Advocate for the respondent.
ORDER
Per: Justice Vivek Rusia
State of Madhya Pradesh and others have filed this writ appeal
against the order dated 24.07.2023, whereby the Writ Petition No.7210 of
2022 has been allowed by placing reliance on the judgment passed by the
Full Bench of this Court in case of Om Prakash Vyas V/s State of M.P. and
others in Writ Petition No.26909 of 2018 dated 17.02.2023 and judgment
passed by the Apex Court in case of State of Punjab & Ors. V/s Rafiq Masih
(White Washer) & Ors. reported in (2015) 4 SCC 334.
02. State of M.P. has filed this writ appeal inter alia on the ground that
the principle laid down in the case of Rafiq Masih (supra) will not apply in
this case because petitioner retired as a Gazetted Officer i.e. Principal of
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:14296
2 WA-204-2024
Govt. Higher Secondary School. In case of Rafiq Masih (supra) the Apex
Court has granted the benefit from the recovery to the employees who retired
from the post of Group "C" and Group "D", therefore, no financial burden
was caused on the writ petitioner because of impugned recovery. It is further
submitted that the writ petitioner gave an undertaking that during his service
to the department if there was any error in the pay fixation, then excess
amount of salary would be recovered from his retiral dues. Thus, the Writ
Court has wrongly allowed the writ petition.
We have heard learned counsel for the appellants and perused the
entire record of the writ petition.
03. The petitioner has challenged the order dated 15.03.2021, whereby
the Block Education Officer has directed writ petitioner to deposit an amount
of Rs.2,02,671/- alongwith interest of Rs.98,384/-, in total 3,01,055/-. The
petitioner under compulsion had deposited the amount because the pension
and other dues were withheld at that relevant point of time. Thereafter, the
writ petitioner approached this Court.
04. By way of return, the respondents (therein) tried to justify the
impugned action by submitting that the writ petitioner was granted the
Second Krammonati, therefore, the excess payment was made to him and
same has been recovered after retirement. Alongwith the return, the
respondents therein have filed a tabular chart to explain the calculation of
principal amount as well as the interest. In the impugned order as well as in
the return, the respondent has not explained as to why the Second
Krammonati was wrongly granted to the writ petitioner and the writ
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:14296
3 WA-204-2024
petitioner was not entitled to get the Second Krammonati.
05. In absence of any reasons explained in the petition as well as in
the impugned order, the action of the respondent cannot be justified. So far
as the chart submitted by the writ petitioner is concerned, it is nothing but the
details of the excess amount paid from April 2012 till his retirement.
06. It is not a case of the respondents therein that the writ petitioner has
illegally drawn this excess amount during his service. The benefit of
Krammonati was not given to him due to misrepresentation by him. The
amount which was paid to him was initially less than Rs.1,000/- and at the
time of retirement, it became Rs.1,667/- and now after retirement, the entire
amount of Rs.2,02,671/- has been recovered alongwith the interest which has
certainly caused financial burden to the writ petitioner. Even if the
undertaking was given, the respondents therein have failed to justify as to
why the Second Krammonati was wrongly granted to the writ petitioner.
Even otherwise, the impugned recovery has been made without giving any
opportunity of hearing to the writ petitioner. Hence, Writ Court has rightly
allowed the writ petition.
06. In view of the above, this Writ Appeal fails and is hereby
dismissed.
(VIVEK RUSIA) (BINOD KUMAR DWIVEDI)
JUDGE JUDGE
Divyansh
