Madhya Pradesh High Court
Dilip Singh Raghuvanshi vs State Of M.P. on 29 April, 2015
1
W.P.No.4463/2009 (Dilip Singh Raghuvanshi & Ors. v. State of M.P. & Ors.)
29/04/2015
None for the petitioners.
Shri Praveen Newaskar, Deputy Government Advocate for
the respondents/State.
In view of call of Bar Association, certain Advocates are abstaining from work.
In the light of judgment of Constitution Bench of Supreme Court in Ex. Capt. Harish Uppal v. Union of India & Another reported in (2003) 2 SCC 45, I deem it proper to hear the matter.
Heard on admission.
Return has been filed in this matter.
The petitioners are Adhyapak, (Class III employees) in the respondent department. The pay of petitioners was fixed in the scale of Rs.4,000-125-6,500/-. The department issued a circular dated 28.06.2007 for the purpose of fixation of pay of Shiksha Karmi on their merger in Adhyapak Samvarg. In pursuant to the said circular, the pay fixation was made. However, they decided to recover the over payment on the basis of aforesaid pay fixation. It is contended that this Court in W.P.No.1045/2009, Annexure P-5, opined that the said recovery is impermissible. The respondents are bent upon to recover the said amount. This Court on 24.09.2009 stayed the recovery.
Shri Praveen Newaskar submits that the petitioners were paid certain amount for which they were not entitled. The amount was directed to be recovered because the same was obtained by 2 W.P.No.4463/2009 (Dilip Singh Raghuvanshi & Ors. v. State of M.P. & Ors.) playing the fraud.
I have heard him at length.
In the return, it is contended that the petitioners obtained the excess amount without signature of the competent authority i.e., Chief Executive Officer, Zila Panchayat, Vidisha. In the opinion of this Court, in the Government departments, the pay-bill is being prepared by one authority, it is examined and passed by another. The respondents have not chosen to establish the role of the petitioners in the said pay release process. In absence of establishing the role of the petitioners, I am unable to hold that petitioners have played any fraud in the matter of receiving payment. It is contended that an action for said fraud is also proposed against one S.K. Tripathi. However, no document was filed to show as to whether any such action was ever taken. In the present case, there is no evidence on record to show that petitioners have obtained the said amount by playing fraud or by mis-representing before the authorities. The question of recovery of excess payment came for consideration before the Apex Court in State of Punjab & Ors. v. Rafiq Masih (White Washer) etc. reported in 2015 (1) MPHT 130 (SC). The Apex Court after taking note of earlier judgments on the point held that recovery cannot be made in certain cases. It includes cases of retired employees and also low paid employees of Class III & Class IV. In the said judgment, it is held that in absence of establishing mis-representing, no recovery can be made for overpayment from retired employees and Class III 3 W.P.No.4463/2009 (Dilip Singh Raghuvanshi & Ors. v. State of M.P. & Ors.) & Class IV employees.
Considering the aforesaid, the action of the respondents in recovering the overpayment cannot be upheld. Resultantly, the respondents are restrained from making the recovery of overpayment in question. The interim order is made absolute.
Petition is allowed.
(SUJOY PAUL)
(ra) Judge