Madhya Pradesh High Court
Km.Mridula Saxena vs State Of M.P on 8 May, 2017
1 W.P. No.7497/2012
08/05/2017
Shri O.P. Saxena, learned counsel for the petitioner.
Shri C.R. Roman, learned Government Advocate for
respondents/State.
Learned counsel for respondents/State filed additional reply today, the same is taken on record.
According to learned counsel for the respondents, an undertaking has been given by the petitioner way back in year 1998 as well as 2009, therefore, as per the mandate of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the matter of High Court of Punjab & Haryana & Others Vs. Jagdev Singh passed in Civil Appeal No.3500 of 2006, recovery can be made by the respondents/State.
Learned counsel for the petitioner raises three grounds; (1) that the Hon'ble Apex Court in the matter as referred above in para 11 has categorically confined the power of recovery of respondents/State only in respect of proposition No.2 given in para 10 of the judgment, therefore, no recovery can be made against the petitioner.
(2) In para 11 of the judgment itself, it has been rendered while dealing with the facts of that case that the officer has furnished an undertaking while opting for revised pay scale. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that here at the time of opting revised pay scale no undertaking was given by the petitioner. The submission of undertaking was subsequent to the grant of pay scale.
(3) Another argument raised by counsel for the petitioner is that respondents have filed reply after lapse of five years, therefore, suitable cost be imposed upon them.
Learned counsel for the respondents/State sought three days' time to go through the judgment referred above and to advance argument.
List the matter on 11th May, 2017 alongwith W.P. No.7015/2017.
(Anand Pathak) Judge vc