Madhya Pradesh High Court
Manoharlal Badgotya vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 1 February, 2017
WP-2819-2016
(MANOHARLAL BADGOTYA Vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH)
01-02-2017
Shri Girish Patwardhan, counsel for the petitioner.
Shri C.S.Ujjania, counsel for the respondent/State.
Heard finally with consent.
By this writ petition, the petitioner has raised the grievance in respect of the recovery of a sum of Rs.18,169/- at the time of retirement as also non grant of benefit of the krammonati while he was in service.
The petitioner's case is that he was appointed in 1984 on the post of Tracer, thereafter he was posted as Assistant Draftsman in the year 1995 but benefit of kramonnati was not given even after completion of 12 years and 24 years of service. According to the petitioner he had completed 24 years of service in 2008 and the juniors at that stage were given the benefit of krammonati. The petitioner had retired from service on 31.08.2014 on reaching the age of superannuation and while settling the pensionary dues, a sum of Rs.18,169/- has been deducted. Hence the petitioner has approached this Court.
Respondent has filed the reply taking a stand that since the petitioner was wrongly granted one additional increment, therefore while settling the pensionary dues, the excess amount paid to the petitioner has been recovered. Respondent has also denied the petitioner's right of krammonati. It has also been stated that the petitioner has been found ineligible for the benefit of kramonnati.
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 Vs. Union of India and others reported in 1994(2) SCC 521, in the matter of Sahibram Vs. State of Hariyana and others reported in 1994(2) SCC 52, in the matter of Syade Abdul Qadir and others Vs. State of Bihar and others reported in 2009(3) SCC 475. He further submits that benefit of krammonati has wrongly been denied to the petitioner. Counsel for the respondent submits that since the benefit was wrongly extended, therefore, it has been withdrawn.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 Vs. State of Uttarakhand and others reported in 2012(8) SCC 417. He further submits that petitioner is not entitled for the benefit of krammonati. Having heard the learned counsel for parties and on the perusal of the record, it is noticed that mainly two issues are involved in the matter. First is relating to the recovery after retirement and second is in respect of grant of benefit of krammonati during the period petitioner was in service.
So far as issue No.1 is concerned, 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 it 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 W.A. No.168/2012 (State of M.P. and others Vs. Om Prakash S/o Daulat Singh Pure) has considered the judgment of the Supreme Court in the matter of Chandi Prasad Uniyial (supra) as well as the issue of hardship and has held as under:-
â7. We have gone through the order passed by the Supreme Court in the case of Chandi Prasad Uniyal and others Vs. 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 521 and Sahib Ram 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 to 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 dismissedâ.
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. The supreme court also recently in judgment in the matter of State of Punjab Vs. Rafiq Masih reported in AIR(SC) 2015-696 has categorised the cases of the employees where hardships may be caused to them on account of the recovery due to the payment mistakenly made by the employer and in the said judgment the retired employees are covered by the said category. Keeping in view the fact that the petitioner had retired on 31.08.2014 and thereafter the respondent has 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 respondent is permitted to recover the amount in pursuance to the impugned order, hence the impugned action of recovery after retirement cannot be sustained. So far as issue No.2 is concerned, the record reflects that petitioner's case for grant of krammonati was considered by the screening committee in the meeting dated 29.03.2008 in the light of the requirement of the circular dated 19.04.1999 and the screening committed on examination of the record of the petitioner had found that petitioner did not fulfil the minimum requirement for grant of krammonati. The minutes of the screening committee have been filed as Annx.R/1 along with the reply which clearly reflect that the decision of screening committee was taken after scrutiny of the record of the petitioner. Inspite of last opportunity to file rejoinder granted on 11.01.2017, these proceedings have not been disputed or challenged by the petitioner. In view of the above, the petitioner is not entitled for the relief of grant of krammonati.
Keeping in view the aforesaid analysis, the writ petition is allowed in part to the extent of recovery of amount of Rs.18,169/- at the time of retirement, by setting aside the said recovery and with a direction to the respondent to refund the amount so recovered within a period of 3 months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order.
C.c. as per rules.
(PRAKASH SHRIVASTAVA) JUDGE