Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2008 DIGILAW 792 (MP)

Devkunwar v. State of M. P.

2008-06-27

SHANTANU KEMKAR

body2008
ORDER 1. The petitioner's husband Late Shri Bahadur Singh Rathore, was working in the Water Resources Department of the State Government. On his death, the petitioner applied for grant of terminal benefits to her. She was paid all the benefits except an amount of Rs. 18,055/- which was recovered from the gratuity amount payable to her vide order dated 26.11.2005 (Annexure P-l). Feeling aggrieved, the petitioner has filed this petition. 2. The counsel for the petitioner contends that the recovery of the said amount payable to her could not have been ordered. According to him, the recovery is contrary to the law laid down by the Supreme Court in the case of Sahibram v. State of Haryana [(1994) 2 SCC 52] and in the case of Shyambabu Verma v. Union of India [ (1994) 2 SCC 521 ]. 3. The respondents filed the reply and have stated that at the time of finalization of the petitioner's case for grant of terminal benefits it was noticed that the petitioner's husband has· wrongly been extended the benefits of two increments, the mistake of granting of benefit of increments was a clerical error and in the circumstances, the amount of Rs. 18,055/- was ordered to be recovered. 4. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and after going through the law laid down by the Supreme Court in the aforesaid cases, I am of the view that the benefit of increments was not extended in favour of petitioner's husband on account of any fraud or misrepresentation on his part. In view of the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Sahibram (supra) and in the case of Shyambabu Verma (supra) any amount paid erroneously or on the basis of wrong interpretation of rules or misconception cannot be recovered. It can only be recovered if such payment was made as a result of any fraud or misrepresentation on the part of the employee. It is not the case of the respondents that the benefits of increments were granted to the petitioner's husband on account of any fraud or misrepresentation on his part. In the circumstances, the amount could not be recovered from the Gratuity amount payable to the petitioner. 5. Accordingly the impugned order dated 26.11.2005 (Annexure P-1) deserves to be and is hereby quashed. The respondents are directed to make the payment of Rs. In the circumstances, the amount could not be recovered from the Gratuity amount payable to the petitioner. 5. Accordingly the impugned order dated 26.11.2005 (Annexure P-1) deserves to be and is hereby quashed. The respondents are directed to make the payment of Rs. 18,055/- deducted from the Gratuity amount payable to her. In case the said amount is not paid to the petitioner within a period of four months, it will carry interest @ 6% per annum from 26.11.2005 till payment.