Madhya Pradesh High Court
WP/25873/2021 of AAZAD KHAN Vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH on 2 February 2024
COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT GWALIOR BEFORE HON'BLE SHRI
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESHAT GWALIORBEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE MILIND RAMESH PHADKEON THE 2[nd] OF FEBRUARY, 2024
WRIT PETITION No. 25873 of 2021
BETWEEN:-
AAZAD KHAN W/O LATE SHRI SAFIR KHAN, AGEDABOUT 63 YEARS, OCCUPATION: RETIREDTEACHER/UDT WARD NO. 20, HOUSE NO. 337, JAILROAD, NEAR NALA BHIND (MADHYA PRADESH)
(BY SHRI R.P. SIINGH - ADVOCATE)
.....PETITIONER
AND
1.THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH PRINCIPALSECRETARY VALLABH BHAWAN (MADHYAPRADESH)SECRETARY VALLABH BHAWAN (MADHYAPRADESH)
2.DISTRICT EDUCATION OFFICER BHIND (MADHYAPRADESH)PRADESH)
3.BLOCK MEDICAL OFFICER (BEO) BLOCK ATER(MADHYA PRADESH)(MADHYA PRADESH)
4.DDO/ SANKUL PRACHARYA GOVT. HIGHER SEC.SCHOOL JABASA TEH ATER BHIND (MADHYAPRADESH)SCHOOL JABASA TEH ATER BHIND (MADHYAPRADESH)
(BY SHRI SOHIT MISHRA - GOVERNMENT ADVOCATE)
.....RESPONDENTS
This petition coming on for hearing this day, the court passed the following:
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
2
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
ORDER
The present petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution seeking following relief:- "7.1 That, the impugned recovery order Annexure P-3 undated passed by relevant respondent authorities may kindly be setaside.
7.2 that, respondent authorities further may kindly be directed torefund the illegally recovered amount Rs.206722/- with 12%interest till the realization of amount from deposited/due datewithin a stipulated period of three months.
7.3 That, any other relief doing Justice into the matter includingcost of petition, advocate fee etc. may also kindly be awarded tothe petitioner."
I t is the submission of learned counsel for petitioner that petitionerentered into the service of respondent/department on 16.11.1984 as AssistantTeacher thereafter he was promoted as Upper Division Teacher (U.D.T.) in theyear 2013 and retired on 23.11.2020. The present petition is filed against theorder (Annexure P/3), whereby the relevant respondent/authority recovered theexcess amount of Rs.206722/- with interest in the name of recovery of excesssalary payment without conducting any inquiry and without issuing any showcause notice to the petitioner about the recovery and after his retirement all ofsudden it was directed to the petitioner that PPO shall not be issued if theamount in question is not deposited, however, the same has been deposited on17.06.2021. Learned counsel for petitioner relied upon the Judgment of ApexCourt in the cases of State of Punjab and others Vs. Rafiq Masih (WhiteWasher), 2015 (1), MPHT 130 (SC) Para11, Thomas Deniel Vs. State ofKerala and others 2022 SCC Online SC 536 and High Court of Punjaband Haryana & others Vs. Jagdev Singh reported in 2016 SCC Online SC748 and sought parity.
Learned counsel for respondent/State opposed the prayer and submittedthat due to calculation mistake, some extra benefits were given to the petitionerwhich were not legitimately payable to her. Therefore the said amount has beenrecovered. There is no arbitrariness or illegality.
Heard counsel for the rival parties and perused the documents appendedthereto.
This is a case where petitioner, a lady aged 63 years, was a UDT at therelevant point of time and she got excess payment made while making thepayment of salary. Therefore, any benefits extended to her were not because ofmisrepresentation of petitioner or concealment of any facts.
Arguments
In the case of Rafiq Masih (supra), Thomas Daniel (Supra) andJagdev Singh (supra), it has been held that if petitioner does not misrepresentand has not given any undertaking, then no recovery can be issued against her.Here, in the present case, respondents failed to refer any undertaking given bypetitioner. Similarly, petitioner did not misrepresent and was not instrumental inconcealment of any facts. Therefore, the instant petition stands allowed andimpugned order (Annexure P/3) is set aside. Since recovery has already beenmade by the respondents, therefore, recovered amount be returned back to thepetitioner within a period of four months.
With the aforesaid direction, the present petition stands allowed anddisposed of.
E-copy/certified copy as per rules.
neetu
(MILIND RAMESH PHADKE)JUDGE