Madhya Pradesh High Court
Geeta Sonkar vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 5 February, 2024
Author: Chief Justice
Bench: Ravi Malimath, Vishal Mishra
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA
PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE RAVI MALIMATH,
CHIEF JUSTICE
&
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VISHAL MISHRA
ON THE 5 th OF FEBRUARY, 2024
WRIT APPEAL No. 102 of 2024
BETWEEN:-
GEETA SONKAR, W/O LATE SHRI DHANIRAM
SONKAR, AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS, OCCUPATION:
PRESENTLY POSTED AS ASSISTANT GRADE II
SERVICE, OFFICE OF DIVISIONAL DEPUTY
COMMISSIONER, COMMERCIAL TAX, SAGAR
DIVISION (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....APPELLANT
(BY SHRI DEVENDRA KUMAR TRIPATHI - ADVOCATE)
AND
1. THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH,
THROUGH ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY,
COMMERCIAL TAX DEPARTMENT,
VALLABH BHAWAN, BHOPAL (MADHYA
PRADESH)
2. DIVISIONAL DEPUTY COMMISSIONER,
COMMERCIAL TAXES DEPARTMENT,
DIVISION SAGAR (MADHYA PRADESH)
3. DIVISIONAL JOINT DIRECTOR,
DIRECTORATE OF TREASURY AND
A C C O U N T DIVISION, SAGAR (MADHYA
PRADESH)
4. DISTRICT TREASURY OFFICER, SAGAR
DISTRICT SAGAR (MADHYA PRADESH)
2
.....RESPONDENTS
(BY SHRI S.S. CHOUHAN - GOVERNMENT ADVOCATE)
T h is appeal coming on for admission this day, Hon'ble Shri
Justice Ravi Malimath, Chief Justice passed the following:
ORDER
Aggrieved by the order dated 22.11.2023 passed by the learned Single Judge in dismissing the Writ Petition No.1363 of 2022, the petitioner is in appeal.
2. The case of the petitioner is that she was initially appointed on 04.02.1994 as a Peon in the Sales Tax Office, Circle-1, Sagar. She was promoted as Assistant Grade-3 by the order dated 11.07.2002 and as Assistant Grade-2 by the order dated 31.03.2011. In terms of Annexure P-
6 dated 16.04.2007, she was asked to qualify for Hindi Typing examination from a recognized Board within a period of two years from that date. She cleared the said examination in 2008. Later on, the petitioner was promoted against the post of Assistant Grade-2 in the year 2011. Thereafter, the impugned order was passed to indicate that the petitioner has not qualified the Hindi Typing examination for being promoted as Assistant Grade-3. Therefore, the increments granted to her are erroneous and, therefore, they sought to recover a sum of Rs.3,53,072/-. Questioning the same, the instant appeal is filed.
3. The learned Single Judge came to the view that the petitioner before passing the Hindi Typing examination was not entitled for any increment by placing reliance on the Full Bench judgment of this Court in the case of Manoj Kumar Purohit and others vs. State of M.P. and others , reported 3 in 2016(1) MPLJ 449.
4. The undisputed facts are that after she was promoted to the post of Assistant Grade-3, the new rules were promulgated w.e.f. 01.04.2003. The order of promotion, which has been produced vide Annexure P-2, does not indicate any condition for passing the Hindi Typing examination. Even otherwise, she was granted two years' time to successfully complete the Hindi Typing examination. Well within that period of two years, she has completed the examination. Therefore, the question of claiming any recovery from the appellant, is wholly unjustified.
5. The learned Government Advocate submits that increments have been wrongly given to her since she has not passed the Hindi Typing examination when she was promoted.
6. However, on considering the order of promotion, we do not find that such a condition existed. Assuming that there was a condition for passing the examination, it is only then that the plea of the State could have been accepted. In absence of the same and in the face of Annexure P-6 wherein two years period was granted and she has passed the exam in two years, the question of recovery, in our considered view, may not be appropriate. Moreover, the increments granted to her are not related to Hindi Typing examination. It is related because of her successful completion of probation and other factors. Therefore, we do not think that both these issues could be linked up.
7. On considering the facts and circumstances, we are of the view that the learned Single Judge committed an error in dismissing the petition. The claim made by the State seeking recovery from the petitioner is 4 unjustified.
8. Consequently, the writ appeal is allowed. The order dated 22.11.2023 passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P. No.1363 of 2022 is set aside. The writ petition is allowed. The impugned order dated 10.01.2022 vide Annexure P-10 is quashed.
9. Pending interlocutory application is disposed off.
(RAVI MALIMATH) (VISHAL MISHRA)
CHIEF JUSTICE JUDGE
psm
Digitally signed by
PREMSHANKAR
MISHRA
Date: 2024.02.06
16:43:17 +05'30'