Madhya Pradesh High Court
The State Of Madhya Pradesh vs Smt. Shobha Singh Judgement Given By: ... on 17 February, 2014
..... 1
W.A.No. 771 of 2011
State of M.P.& others. Smt. Shobha Singh
17.02.2014
Shri P Dharmadhikari, G.A. for the appellants.
Shri Sanjay Verma, Counsel for the respondent.
This petition is directed against an order dated 28.10.2010 passed in W.P. No.8847/2006(s) by which a writ petition preferred by the respondent was allowed and the impugned order Annexure P-13 dated 10.5.2007 was quashed. This order has been assailed by the appellants on the following grounds :-
1. That no undertaking was filed by the respondent inspite of the specific order issued by the State Government.
2. That other three co-employees to whom the order Annexure P-13 was issued, they had filed undertaking.
Their matters are still pending before the High Court so this appeal may be admitted on the aforesaid grounds.
From the perusal of the record, we find that vide order Annexure R-5 a decision was taken by the Chief Engineer to refer the matter to the State Government on 8.3.2006 for final decision but till date no final decision has been taken. An affidavit has been filed by the Executive Engineer, E/M, HEM Div. Sagar, P.K. Jawar along with which he has filed a copy of order dated 7.7.2011 which also reflects that till the aforesaid date no decision was taken by the State Government. Apart from this, the affidavit also does not reflect that inspite of lapse of seven years any decision has been taken by the State Government in the present case.
The factual position is that the late husband of the respondent Smt. Shobha Singh was in service. He was allowed pay scale from time to time which was subsequently reduced ..... 2 W.A.No. 771 of 2011 State of M.P.& others. Smt. Shobha Singh 17.02.2014 and recovery was ordered. This order was under challenge and this Writ Court considering the facts, quashed the recovery and order Annexure P-1 so far as it relates to the respondent. In the impugned order is based on the judgment of the Apex Court in Sahib Ram vs. State of Haryana and ors.[ 1995 Supp (1) SCC 18] in which we do not find any infirmity warranting our interference. This appeal is dismissed with no order as to costs.
Apart from this the facts of the present case are different, because the husband of the respondent had died and he could not file the undertaking, as he died within a period of 22 days from the date of issuance of Annexure P-13. This order has been passed in the peculiar facts of the case and shall not be treated as president.
(Krishn Kumar Lahoti) (U.C.Maheshwari)
Judge Judge
vj
..... 3
W.A.No. 771 of 2011
State of M.P.& others. Smt. Shobha Singh
17.02.2014