Madhya Pradesh High Court
Ram Babu Sharma vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 11 March, 2015
1 WP No. 7066/2013
HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH,
BENCH AT GWALIOR.
SB : Justice Sujoy Paul
Writ Petition No.7066/2013
Ram Babu Sharma
Vs.
State of M.P. and Ors.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Shri Abhishek Sharma, Advocate for the petitioner.
Mrs. Sangeeta Pachauri, Dy.G.A. for the respondents / State.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ORDER
( 11 / 03 / 2015 ) This petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution challenging the action of the respondents in inflicting recovery from pension. In addition, it is prayed that petitioner's pension be fixed as Rs.9,640/- per month. It is further prayed that gratuity to the tune of Rs. 5,47,173/- be directed to be paid with interest.
2. Shri Abhishek Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioner, submits that the respondents have decided to make recovery of Rs.3,44,056/- by Annexure P/1 but no opportunity of hearing was given to the petitioner. The amount was paid to the petitioner without their being any misrepresentation of fact on the part of the petitioner. He submits that the pension and gratuity should have been fixed on the basis of documents (page 29).
3. Prayer is opposed by Mrs. Sangeeta Pachauri. She submits that two advance increments were wrongly paid to the petitioner because of which a wrong fixation was made. On the basis of said wrong pay fixation, the petitioner continued to enjoy the benefits for decades. This wrong fixation is detected by Joint Director Treasury and Accounts by Communication dated 23.03.2013 which is recoverable. She opposed the relief claimed.
2 WP No. 7066/20134. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
5. In the opinion of this Court, the question of recovery of excess payment is dealt with by the Apex Court in its recent judgment reported in 2015 (1) M.P.H.T. 130 (SC) ( State of Punjab and Others Vs. Rafiq Masih (White Washer) etc.). The Apex Court after considering the earlier judgments on this point opined that recovery of excess payment from the employee belonging to Class-III and Class-IV is impermissible. In para 12(ii) the Apex Court opined that recovery from retired employee is also impermissible. Thus, the aspect of recovery is squarely covered by the recent judgment aforesaid.
6. So far as wrong fixation of pension and gratuity is concerned, I am unable to hold that merely because document is filled up by Head of the Office, the petitioner is entitled to get the same amount which is mentioned in the document (page 29). Learned counsel for the petitioner is unable to show that calculation of pension by the respondents is incorrect or improper. The same is the case with regard to computation of gratuity.
7. Considering the aforesaid, I deem it proper to permit the petitioner to prefer a detailed representation regarding claim of correct computation of pension and gratuity. If such representation is preferred, it will be lawful for the respondents to decide it in accordance with rules by a reasoned order within 60 days. Outcome shall be communicated to the petitioner.
8. This petition succeeds to the extent recovery aforesaid is imposed on the petitioner. The recovery imposed vide Annexure P/1 is set aside. No view is expressed about the question of computation of pension and gratuity. Petition is allowed to the extent indicated above.
(Sujoy Paul) Judge sarathe