Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2015 DIGILAW 1261 (MP)

Govindlal Sankhla v. State of M. P.

2015-12-18

PRAKASH SHRIVASTAVA

body2015
ORDER 1. This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner challenging the recovery of a sum of Rs.47,567/- which has been effected after the retirement of petitioner. 2. The case of petitioner is that he was working as Teacher and had retired on 30.11.2011 on reaching the age of superannuation but while setting the pensionary claim the respondents have deducted the aforesaid sum. 3. A reply has been file by the State stating therein that petitioner was granted the benefit of senior pay scale w.e.f. 1.1.1986 whereas the petitioner was illegally granted the benefit of FR 22D, hence the excess payment was made to the petitioner from 1986 to 2011, therefore, the impugned recovery has been effected. 4. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the impugned recovery has been directed against the petitioner without any opportunity of hearing and that the benefit was extended to the petitioner not on account of any misrepresentation or fraud. He has further submitted that the impugned recovery after his retirement, will cause serious hardship to the petitioner. He has placed reliance upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in the matter of Shyam Babu Verma v. Union of India and others, reported in (1994)2 SCC 521 , in the matter of Sahibram v. State of Hariyana and others, reported in (1994)2 SCC 52, in the matter of Syade Abdul Qadir and others v. State of Bihar and others, reported in (2009)3 SCC 475 . 5. Counsel for the respondents submits that since the benefit was wrongly extended, therefore, it has been withdrawn. He has placed reliance upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in the matter of Chandi Prasad Uniyal and others v. State of Uttarakhand and others, reported in (2012)8 SCC 417 . 6. Having heard the learned counsel for parties and on the perusal of the record, it is found that no opportunity of hearing was given to the petitioner before passing the impugned order. It has further been found that though the plea of misrepresentation or fraud on the part of the petitioner is not sustainable in view of the judgment of the Supreme Court in the matter of Chandi Prasad Uniyal (supra), but iit is a case of great hardship since the recovery is sought to be made after the retirement of the petitioner. The Division Bench of this Court by the judgment dated 9th November 2012 in Writ Appeal No.168/2012 (State of M.P. and others v. Om Prakash s/o Daulat Singh Pure) has considered the judgment of the Supreme Court in the matter of Chandi Prasad Uniyal (supra), as well as the issue of hardship and has held as under :- “7. We have gone through the order passed by the Supreme Court in the case of Chandi Prasad Uniyal and others v. State of Uttarakhand and others (supra). We find that the Supreme Court in the said judgment has observed the directions contained in the case of Syed Abdul Qadir (2009)3 SCC 475 and Col. B. J. Akkara (2006)11 SCC 709 as also in the case of Shyam Babu Verma (1994)2 SCC 52 wherein the department is restrained from recovery of excess amount keeping in view the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case since the beneficiaries had either retired or were on the verge of retirement and so as to avoid any hardship of them. 8. In the present case also, the benefit extended to the writ petitioner was sought to be recovered on his retirement in our considered view, this if allowed to stand, would cause great hardship to a retired employee. 9. In the circumstances, we are of the view that no case for interference in the order passed by learned Single Judge is made out. 10. As a result, the appeal fails and is hereby dismissed”. 7. The present case is also a case similar to the one which has been decided by Division Bench of this Court as above. This is also a case of great hardship when the amount is sought to be recovered at the fag end of service after the retirement of the petitioner. 8. Keeping in view the fact that the petitioner had retired on 31.7.2012 and thereafter the respondents have passed the impugned order of recovery, it is found that it is a case where serious hardship will be caused to the petitioner who is a retired employee if the respondents are permitted to recover the amount in pursuance to the impugned order. 9. Considering the aforesaid, the writ petition is allowed and the impugned recovery for a sum of Rs.47,567/- is hereby set side. However, the pay fixation is maintained. 9. Considering the aforesaid, the writ petition is allowed and the impugned recovery for a sum of Rs.47,567/- is hereby set side. However, the pay fixation is maintained. The respondents are directed to refund the amount, if any, recovered in pursuance to the impugned order within a period of three months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order.