Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2004 DIGILAW 1037 (MP)

Ganpat v. State of M. P.

2004-12-17

A.M.SAPRE

body2004
JUDGMENT By filing this writ under m1icle 226/227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner seeks to challenge the order dated 13.9.2003 (Annexure P-2) whereby a direction is issued to recover a sum of Rs. 26,165/- from the retiral dues payable to the petitioner consequent upon his retirement. So the short question that arises for consideration is whether respondents are justified in issuing a direction as contained in the order dated 13.9.2003 to the effect for making what they (State) call it to be in the nature of excess amount paid to the petitioner while he was in service? Petitioner was in State employment. He was working on the post of "Junior Malariya Inspector". He retired from the service on 31.5.2003. On 13.9.2003 (Annexure P-2) the State (Treasury Officer) sent an impugned letter (Annexure P-2) stating therein that a sum of Rs. 26,165/is to be recovered from the petitioner. No details as such were furnished in the letter as to why how and on what basis and against which dues this amount is liable to be recovered from the petitioner. It is this letter which is impugned in this petition. On notice being issued to the State, the stand of the State in substance is that since the petitioner was already given promotion in the year 1996 and hence, in 1999 he was not entitled for yet another promotion by name called "Kramonnati" . It is on this basis, the State says that due to wrong fixation or conferral of benefit of "K-aramonnati" in 1999 the petitioner was paid an excess sum of Rs. 26,~65/- which is now recoverable from his retiral dues. Heard Shri V.K. Patwari, learned counsel for the petitioner and Ku. Seem a Sharma, learned Penal Lawyer for the respondent State. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and having perused record of the case, I am inclined to allow the writ and quash the impugned direction, contained in the impugned letter in so far as it relates to recovery of excess amount of Rs. 26,165/- is concerned. As rightly urged by learned counsel for the petitioner on the basis of law laid down by Supreme Court in the case of Shyam Babu Verma v. Union of India, (1994) 27. 26,165/- is concerned. As rightly urged by learned counsel for the petitioner on the basis of law laid down by Supreme Court in the case of Shyam Babu Verma v. Union of India, (1994) 27. Administrative Tribunals Cases 121 (Annexure P-4) the so-called promotion which is now made basis in support of the impugned recovery was not due to any fault on the part of petitioner. In other words, the so-called ''Kramonnati'' was given by the State to the petitioner but for no fault of petitioner and hence, no wrong can be attributed to the petitioner on account of certain benefits accrued to the order. If the petitioner enjoyed the benefit then it was due to fault that lay on the part of State. It is on this basis, the State has now no right to recover the excess money if paid to the petitioner during his service tenure from his pensionary benefit. This is what their lordships ruled in the case of Shyam Babu Verma's case (supra) in following words (para 11) : "Para 11 -- Although we have held that the petitioners were entitled only to the pay scale of Rs. 330-480 in terms of the recommendations of the Third Pay Commission w.e.f. 1.4.1973 and only after the period of 10 years, they became entitled to the pay scale of Rs. 330-560 but as they have received the scale of Rs. 330-560 since 1973 due to no fault of theirs and that scale is being reduced in the year 1984 with effect from 1.1.1973, it shall only be just and proper not to recover any excess amount which has already been paid to them. Accordingly, we direct that no steps should be taken to recover or to adjust any excess amount paid to the petitioners due to the fault of the respondents, the petitioners being in no way responsible for the same. 12. The petitions are allowed in part. There will be no order as to costs. Respectfully, following the verdict rendered by Supreme Court in Shyam Verma's case the impugned order of recovery cannot sustain. It has to be set aside. It is accordingly, set aside. In view of aforesaid discussion, the petition succeeds and is allowed. Impugned order dated 13.9.2003 (Annexure P-2) passed by respondent No.3 in so far as it directs recovery of Rs. Respectfully, following the verdict rendered by Supreme Court in Shyam Verma's case the impugned order of recovery cannot sustain. It has to be set aside. It is accordingly, set aside. In view of aforesaid discussion, the petition succeeds and is allowed. Impugned order dated 13.9.2003 (Annexure P-2) passed by respondent No.3 in so far as it directs recovery of Rs. 26,165/- under the head' 'excess salary" is set aside by issuance of writ of certiorari.