Madhya Pradesh High Court
Rajmani Padey vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 21 September, 2023
Author: Maninder S. Bhatti
Bench: Maninder S. Bhatti
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE MANINDER S. BHATTI
ON THE 21 st OF SEPTEMBER, 2023
WRIT PETITION No. 19891 of 2016
BETWEEN:-
RAJMANI PADEY S/O SHATRUDHAN PRASAD PANDEY,
AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS, OCCUPATION: RTD. SUB
TREASURY OFFICER, SIRMOUR REWA, MADHYA
PRADESH.
.....PETITIONER
(BY SHRI ARUN KUMAR SINGH - ADVOCATE)
AND
1. THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH THR.
SECRETARY GOVT. OF MP, FINANCE DEPTT,
VALLABH BHAWAN, BHOPAL, MADHYA
PRADESH.
2. DIRECTOR, DIRECTORATE OF TREASURY AND
ACCOUNTS, BHOPAL, MADHYA PRADESH.
3. JOINT DIRECTOR DIRECTORATE OF TREASURY
AND ACCOUNTS REWA, MADHYA PRADESH.
4. DIVISIONAL PENSION OFFICER DIRECTORATE
OF PENSION, REWA, MADHYA PRADESH.
5. DISTRICT TREASURY OFFICER DIRECTORATE OF
TREASURY AND ACCOUNTS, REWA, MADHYA
PRADESH.
.....RESPONDENTS
(BY SHRI DHEERAJ KUMAR TIWARI - PANEL LAWYER FOR THE
RESPONDENT/STATE)
This petition coming on for admission, this day, the court passed the
following:
ORDER
Signature Not Verified Signed by: SAVITRI PATEL Signing time: 9/25/2023 12:16:24 PM 2 The petitioner had approached this Court by way of the present petition with an apprehension that there may be a recovery against the petitioner, as the operation of Vasectomy (Family planning operation of male) resulted in failure.
2. It is contended by the learned counsel that the petitioner after giving birth to as many as three children, underwent an operation of Vasectomy on 20.01.1987 and therefore, on the basis of the Certificate issued to the Petitioner vide Annexure P-3, benefit of one advance increment was conferred upon the petitioner. The petitioner was blessed with the fourth child on 29.08.1988 and the factum of the birth of the fourth child was intimated by the petitioner to the employer as there was defective vasectomy. Thereafter, the authorities were seeking instructions from each other as to what was the action which was required to be taken against the petitioner on account of the aforesaid circumstances under which the petitioner was blessed with fourth child despite there being an operation of Vasectomy.
3. It is contended by the learned counsel that the respondents have also filed return and during pendency of the petition, certain endorsements have been made in the service book of the petitioner which has been brought on record alongwith application for taking document on record (I.A.9910/2023) and the endorsement made in the Service book reflect that the respondent intend to recover the advance increment which was made available to the petitioner on the basis of the Certificate contained in Annexure P-3.
4. It is contended by the learned counsel that the said recovery is unsustainable in as much as, the petitioners cannot be held guilty as the operation (vasectomy) was turned out to be a failure. It is further contended by the learned counsel that the petitioner was not aware nor intimated that he was Signature Not Verified again required to undergo the same operation despite birth of the fourth child Signed by: SAVITRI PATEL Signing time: 9/25/2023 12:16:24 PM 3 and thus submit that the petition deserves to be allowed.
5. Per contra, learned counsel for the State submit that the eventuality of birth of fourth child despite operation of Vasectomy has taken note of by the Government while issuing a Circular dated 21.04.1988 contained in Annexure R-1 and in terms of the said decision, the employee concerned is required to undergo the operation afresh after the birth of the fourth child. In the present case, the petitioner has not underwent the operation of Vasectomy again after the birth of fourth child and therefore, the recovery was proposed, which is mentioned in the service book of the petitioner. However, it is contended by the learned counsel that in the service book itself, a note was inserted and it was decided that the proposed recovery would be subject to the decision of the present writ petition. Thus, submit that as of now, no order of recovery has been issued against the petitioner.
6. Having considered the submissions advance on behalf of the petitioner, the stand of the petitioner that he is not aware about the Circular dated 21.04.1988 contained in Annexure R-1 and therefore, he did not make any effort to undergo the operation of Vasectomy again after the birth of the third child whereas the respondents contend that the petitioner was working as Lower Division Clerk in the Office of District Treasury Officer, Rewa, therefore, he was supposed to be aware of the said Circular dated 21.04.1988 and hence, ignorance of law is no excuse.
7. However, it is undisputed that by the time of filing the petition, in the year 2016, the respondents had not taken any decision to recover any amount from the petitioner. A perusal of the entry in the service book dated 24.01.2017 reflect that subsequently, the respondents have proposed to recover the amount Signature Not Verified Signed by: SAVITRI PATEL Signing time: 9/25/2023 12:16:24 PM 4 paid to the petitioner towards the advance increment. Hence, it would be conducive and expedient in the interest of justice that the petitioner is afforded an opportunity of hearing before effecting any recovery from the petitioner.
8. Thus, without expressing anything on merit, the present petition stands disposed of with a direction that the respondent shall afford an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and then shall take a decision afresh by passing a well reasoned and speaking order as regards the proposed recovery to be effected against the petitioner. Let the entire exercise be completed within a period of 60 days from the date of production of certified copy of this order.
(MANINDER S. BHATTI) JUDGE veni Signature Not Verified Signed by: SAVITRI PATEL Signing time: 9/25/2023 12:16:24 PM