Madhya Pradesh High Court
WP/1494/2023 of SMT. SUMAN RATHOR 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 GWALIOR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE ANAND PATHAKON THE 2[nd] OF FEBRUARY, 2024
WRIT PETITION No. 1494 of 2023
BETWEEN:-
SMT. SUMAN RATHOR W/O LATE SHRI SHIV MANGALSINGH RATHOR, AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS, OCCUPATION:HOUSEWIFE R/O ARMY BAJARIYA NEAR HEMACONVENT SCHOOL GWALIOR (MADHYA PRADESH)
(BY SHRI SASHANK INDRAPURKAR- ADVOCATE)
.....PETITIONER
AND
1.THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH THROUGHPRINCIPAL SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OFHOME, GOVT. OF M.P. VALLABH BHAWANBHOPAL (M.P.) (MADHYA PRADESH)PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OFHOME, GOVT. OF M.P. VALLABH BHAWANBHOPAL (M.P.) (MADHYA PRADESH)
2.DIRECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE POLICEHEADQUARTERS BHOPAL (MADHYA PRADESH)HEADQUARTERS BHOPAL (MADHYA PRADESH)
3.CHIEF ORGANIZER GRAM RAKSHA SAMITIGWALIOR (MADHYA PRADESH)GWALIOR (MADHYA PRADESH)
4.JOINT DIRECTOR ( TREASURY AND PENSION)MOTI MAHAL, GWALIOR (MADHYA PRADESH)MOTI MAHAL, GWALIOR (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....RESPONDENTS
(BY SHRI RAVINDRA DIXIT- GOVERNMENT ADVOCATE FORRESPONDENT/STATE)
This petition coming on for admission this day, the court passed the following:
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
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
1. Petitioner has filed this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India challenging order dated 04.01.2023(Annexure P/1). By the impugned order dated 04.01.2023, direction has been given by the ChiefOrganizer, Gram Raksha Samiti, Gwalior for making recovery of payment of anamount of Rs.10,21,250/- from the retiral dues of deceased.
2. It is the submission of learned counsel for petitioner that husbandof petitioner was working on the post of Constable (Ministerial) ,who died on15.12.2017. Department has taken out recovery of Rs.10,21,250/- on petitioner.The petitioner had made several representations seeking information as to howmuch of the petitioner's money has been recovered and how much isoutstanding. But the said information was not provided by the department.There was no misrepresentation on the part of employee. Employee had died on15.12.2017, thereafter, recovery has been ordered from the petitioner. Counselfor the petitioner relied on the order passed in Civil Appeal No. 7115/2010dated 2.5.2022 by the Apex Court in case of Thomas Daniel Vs. State ofKerala and others and submitted that if there is no misrepresentation on thepart of employee concerned then recovery cannot be made. In thesecircumstances, impugned order may be quashed.
3. Govt. Advocate for the State has opposed the prayer andsubmitted that as per Clause 6 of the circular dated 31.5.2011 mentions that ifa government servant has died then recovery can be made from his legalrepresentatives or from the member of the family.
4. Heard learned counsel for the parties.
5. As per Clause 6 of Circular dated 31.5.2011, it has been stipulated that if a government servant has died, then recovery cannot be made from hislegal representatives or from the members of the family. The said aspect hasbeen considered by the Coordinate Bench at Principal Seat Jabalpur in the caseof Smt. Chandravati Bairagi vs. State of M.P. in W.P. No. 18891/2022
dated 01.12.2022 and facts and circumstances in the present case stand at parwith the facts of the said case. Since, employee has passed away, therefore, norecovery can be made in view of the Circular dated 31.05.2011.
6 . Considering the submission, impugned order dated 04.01.2023(Annexure P/1) is hereby set aside and consequently no recovery can be madefrom the petitioner under this Act.
7. Petition stands disposed of in above terms.
Vishal
(ANAND PATHAK)JUDGE