Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2005 DIGILAW 312 (MP)

Chandrakant v. State of M. P.

2005-02-28

N.K.MODY

body2005
JUDGMENT The prayer in this petition is that to quash the order Annexure P-2 dated 13.12.2004 whereby the recovery has been initiated from the petitioner. Short facts of the case are that the petitioner was appointed as Lower Division Teacher on 21.10.1971 and benefit of kramonnati in the pay scale of Rs. 1400-2600 was given to the petitioner. On 22.11.1986 the petitioner was promoted as Upper Division Teacher on similar pay scale. The benefit of increment which was given to the petitioner has been withdrawn vide order dated 13.12.2004 wherein it is mentioned that by mistake the increment has been given to the petitioner from 1.1.1986 while petitioner was entitled with effect from 1.8.1989. Hence, it is directed to recover a sum of Rs. 34,377/- from the petitioner. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was not at fault for giving the increment and placed reliance on a decision reported in 1995(1) SCC 18 [Sahib Ram v. State of Haryana and others] wherein the Hon'ble Apex Court has held that since the date of relaxation the appellant had been paid his salary on the revised scale, however, its not on account of any misrepresentation made by the appellant that the benefit of the higher pay scale was given to him but by wrong construction made by the Principal for which the appellant cannot be held to be at fault. It was further held that under the circumstance the amount paid till date may not be recovered from the employee concerned. He further placed reliance on a decision reported in (1994) 2 SCC 521 [Shyam Babu Verma and, others v. Union of India and others] wherein in a case where higher scale was erroneously given to petitioners since 1973 and pay scale of petitioners was reduced in 1984. Three Judges of Hon'ble Supreme Court have held that since petitioners received the higher scale due to no fault of theirs, it shall only be just and proper not to recover any excess amount already paid to them. Learned Panel Lawyer for respondents Ms. Seema Sharma placed reliance on a decision reported in (1997) 6 SCC 139 [V. Gangaram v. Regional Joint Director and others] wherein two Judges of Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that the appellant entitled to two increments for acquiring additional qualifications but more than two increments granted to him. Learned Panel Lawyer for respondents Ms. Seema Sharma placed reliance on a decision reported in (1997) 6 SCC 139 [V. Gangaram v. Regional Joint Director and others] wherein two Judges of Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that the appellant entitled to two increments for acquiring additional qualifications but more than two increments granted to him. It was held that on facts, arrears paid prior to 1985 not to be recovered but the amount paid from 1985 liable to be recovered from the appellant on the ground that the pay was wrongly fixed. Shri Amit Agrawal, advocate as amicus curiae placed reliance on a decision. reported in 2003(1) JLJ 105 [Jabalpur Bus Operators Association and others v. State of M.P. and another] wherein five Judges Bench of this Court has held that in the case of conflict between two decision of the Apex Court, Benches comprising of equal number of Judges, decision of earlier Bench is binding unless explained by the latter Bench of equal strength, in which case the later decision is binding. Decision of a Larger Bench is binding on smaller Benches. In the case law submitted before this Court comprising three Judges of Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that the amount which has been paid to an employee for which there is no fault on the part of an employee cannot be recovered from the employee. On further examining the case, it appears that the amount has been paid to the petitioner as salary and not in lump-sum. In view of this, this petition is allowed and the order Annexure P-2 dated 13.12.2004 is hereby quashed. No order as to costs.