Madhya Pradesh High Court
Santosh Kumar Dixit (S.K. Dixit) vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 2 December, 2021
Author: Deepak Kumar Agarwal
Bench: Deepak Kumar Agarwal
1
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
BENCH AT GWALIOR
(DIVISION BENCH)
Writ Appeal No.427/2019
Santosh Kumar Dixit ..... Appellant
Versus
State of M.P. & Ors. ..... Respondents
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CORAM
Hon. Mr. Justice Ravi Malimath, Chief Justice.
Hon. Mr. Justice Deepak Kumar Agarwal, Judge.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Presence
Shri Alok Bandhu Shrivastava, learned counsel for the
appellant.
Shri Ankur Mody, learned Additional Advocate General for
the respondents/State.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ORDER
(2nd December, 2021) PER JUSTICE DEEPAK KUMAR AGARWAL This intra-court appeal under Section 2(i) of the Madhya Pradesh Uchcha Nyayalaya (Khand Nyaypeeth Ko Appeal) Adhiniyam, 2005 is directed against the order dated 31.1.2019 passed by the learned Single Judge in writ petition No.121 of 2016 by which petition of the writ petitioner/appellant is disposed of 2 with a direction to the appellant to settle the issue of miscellaneous advance with department within one month and in case the appellant fails to do so, the respondents would be at liberty to take steps for recovery of government money.
2. Brief facts of the case are that appellant was Sub-Engineer in Public Health Engineering Department. By order dated 19.1.2012 he was required to deposit Rs.11,41,287.90 towards miscellaneous advance which he took and thereafter no dues certificate will be issued.
3. Previously by order dated 15.7.2013 this Court in W.P.No.1245/2012 preferred by the appellant while disposing of the same directed for settlement of retiral dues as the State has failed to substantiate any dues. In appeal (writ appeal No.584 of 2013) order passed in the writ petition was modified and following order was passed :
"In this appeal, it is pleaded by the appellant that an amount of Rs.11,41,287.90 paise has been due against the respondent against misc. advances, details thereof are as under:-
Sr.No. Month Amount
1. 3/83 20.00
2. 5/89 200.00
3. 11/89 7252.10
4. 4/90 149134.80
5. 5/90 680808.00
6. 8/90 175099.00
7. 10/90 4990.00
3
8. 12/91 20954.00
9. 9/93 7820.00
10. 2/98 95000.00
11,41,287.90
Further details have also been provided by the respondent in the subsequent documents.
The Writ court passed order of payment of pension on the ground that in accordance with Madhya Pradesh Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1972, pension of the respondent could not be withheld.
Appellant, in the return before the Writ Court pleaded that after retirement, following amounts were paid to the respondent:
"a) Rs. 29,541/0 towards the family welfare fund
b) Rs. 65,595/- towards GIS (2003)
c) Rs.6,80,000/- towards Upadan (90%)
d) Rs. 2,80,844/- towards leave encashment.
e) Rs. 1,19,918/- towards 6th Pay Commission (4 installment)
f) Rs.35,395/- towards EICSS (Policy)."
Looking to the aforesaid facts of the case and the fact that allegation against the respondent is that an amount of Rs.11,41,287.90 paise is due against him which was received as misc. advance, however for the aforesaid purpose, no adjudication has been done, this writ appeal is disposed of with the following directions:
(I) The appellant after giving an opportunity of hearing to the respondent shall determine the liability of the respondent in regard to payment of misc.
advances after assigning proper reasons. The respondent shall also be at liberty to produce all documents in support of his claim.
(II) Upto that period, the respondent shall be paid anticipatory pension in accordance with the provisions of Madhya Pradesh Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1972.
(III) The exercise shall be completed within a period of three months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order.
Appeal is disposed of with the aforesaid." 4
4. Thereafter a reasoned order was passed by the Competent Authority on 30/01/2015 in the following terms:
"dk;kZy; v/kh{k.k ;a=h] yksd LokLF; ;kaf=dh foHkkx ifj;kstuk e.My pEcy laHkkx eqjSuk 01@fof/k@v-;a-@yks-Lok-;ka-fo@ifj-e-@pEcy laHkkx eqjSuk] fnukad 30-01-2015 %%jhtUM vkWMj%% ekuuh; mPp U;k;ky; [k.MihB Xokfy;j dh fjV ;kfpdk MCY;w-ih- 1245@2012 esa ikfjr vkns'k fnukad 15-07-2013 ds fo:) 'kklu@foHkkx }kjk ekuuh; mPp U;k;ky; [k.MihB Xokfy;j esa fjV vihy dzekad MCY;w-,- 584@2013 esa ekuuh; mPp U;k;ky; }kjk fnukad 10-02- 2014 dks ikfjr vkns'k ds ifjikyu esa ;kfpdkdrkZ Jh larks"k dqekj nhf{kr lsok fuo`Rr mi;a=h dks e-iz- flfoy lsok ¼isa'ku½ fu;e 1972 ds rgr fu;fer :i ls 90 izfr'kr isa'ku dk Hkqxrku fd;k tk jgk gS] ekg fnlEcj 2014 rd dh izR;kf'kr isa'ku dk Hkqxrku fd;k tk pqdk gSA ¼dk;Zikyu ;a=h yksd LokLF; ;kaf=dh foHkkx [k.M f'koiqjh dk i= i`- dzekad 257&58@LFkk0@dk0;a0@yks0Lok0;ka0@[k.M f'koiqjh fnukad 29-01-2015 ,oa ekuuh; mPp U;k;ky; [k.MihB Xokfy;j esa iwoZ esa nk;j voekuuk izdj.k dzekad 721@2013 esa ekuuh; mPPk U;k;ky; }kjk fnukad 26-06- 2014 dks ikfjr vkns'k dh Nk;k izfr voyksdukFkZ layXu gSA½ ekuuh; mPp U;k;ky; [k.MihB Xokfy;j ds ikfjr vkns'k fnukad 10-02-2014 ds ifjikyu esa ;kfpdkdrkZ Jh larks"k dqekj nhf{kr lsok fuo`Rr mi;a=h dks lquokbZ dk volj iznku djus ,oa fofo/k vfxze jkf'k :0 11]41]287- 90 ¼X;kjg yk[k bdrkyhl gtkj nks lkS lrklh :i;s uCcs iSls½ tks muds uke ls foHkkx esa lek;kstu gsrq yfEcr gS ds lac/a k esa viuk i{k izLrqr djus gsrq i= dzekad 257@fof/k@v0;a0@yksLok;kafo@ifjeaMy pacy laHkkx eqjSuk fnukad 19-01-2015 tkjh dj fnukad 23-01-2015 dks dk;kZy; esa mifLFkr gksus gsrq ys[k fd;k fdUrq ;kfpdkdrkZ fu;r fnuakd 23-01-2015 dks viuk i{k j[kus gsrq mifLFkr ugha gqvkA iqu% bl dk;kZy; ds i= dzekad 329@fof/k@v0;a0@yksLok;kafo@ifj-eaMy@pacy laHkkx eqjSuk fnukad 24-01-2015 ds }kjk Jh larks"k dqekj 5 nhf{kr ;kfpdkdrkZ dks viuk i{k j[kus gsrq fnukad 28-01- 2015 dks izkr% 11%00 cts mifLFkr gksus gsrq i= tkjh dj i= dh ikorh djkbZ xbZA ;kfpdkdrkZ fnukad 28-01-2015 dks v/kksgLrk{kjdrkZ ds le{k mifLFkr gqvk] fdUrq foHkkxh; fjdkMZ dk voyksdu ds mijkar Hkh muds }kjk larks"ktud tokc izLrqr ugha fd;k x;k ,oa os Lo;a Hkh viuk dksbZ Hkh fjdkMZ lkFk esa ysdj mifLFkr ugha gq,A u gh viuk cpko i{k j[kus gsrq dksbZ Hkh lk{; izLrqr fd;s x;sA iqu% ;kfpddrkZ Jh larks"k dqekj nhf{kr dks bl dk;kZy; ds i= dzekad 403@fof/k@v0;a0@yksLok;kafo@ifj-eaMy pacy laHkkx eqjSuk@fnukad 29-01-2015 ds }kjk fnuakd 30-01-2015 dks izkr% 11-00 cts viuk i{k j[kus gsrq leLr egRoiw.kZ nLrkost lkFk ykdj v/kksgLrk{kjdrkZ ds dk;kZy; esa mifLFkr gksus gsrq fuosnu fd;k x;kA fnukad 30-01-2015 dks Jh larks"k dqekj nhf{kr v/kksgLrk{kjdrkZ ds le{k mifLFkr gksdj viuk vkosnu i= fnukad 30-01-2015 izLrqr dj vkosnu esa ys[k fd;k gS fd izkFkhZ ds mij dksbZ cdk;k jkf'k ugha gS vkSj u gh bl ckcr vkt fnukad rd eki iqfLrdk fcy Ogkmpj dS'k cqd vkfn fdlh Hkh izdkj dk nLrkost ugha fn[kk;k x;k gSA bl laca/k esa dk;Zikyu ;a= [k.M fHk.M }kjk tkjh i= dzekad 1841@ys[kk@dk0;a0@yksLok;[email protected]@ fnukad 18-02- 2008 dk voyksdu djkdj 'kkldh; /kujkf'k :0 11]41]287-90 tek djus ckcr tkjh fd;k o vU; nLrkostksa dk voyksdu djk;k x;k] fdUrq ;kfpdkdrkZ } kjk dksbZ Hkh larks"ktud tcko ugha fn;k x;k ,oa vU; nLrkostksa dks izLrqr djus gsrq le; pkgk x;kA ;kfpdkdrkZ }kjk pkgs x;s le;kuqlkj vkxkeh frfFk fnukad 06-02-2015 dks mifLFkr gksus gsrq bl dk;kZy; ds i= dzekad 411@fof/k@v0;a0@yksLok;kafo@ifj-eaMy pacy laHkkx eqjSuk@fnuakd 30-01-2015 dks i= tkjh dj vkxkeh frfFk nh xbZ gS ,oa mDr fu;r frfFk dks ;kfpdkdrkZ ls fuosnu fd;k x;k gS fd os viuk i{k izLrqr djus gsrq muds ikl miyC/k leLr lacaf/kr nLrkost@tkudkjh o lk{;ksa ds lkFk v| ksgLrk{kjdrkZ dk;kZy; e.My eqjSuk esa mifLFkr gksuk lqfuf'pr djsaA ftlls ;Fkkle; izdj.k ds fujkdj.k gsrq vkxkeh dk;Zokgh fd;k tkuk laHko gks ldsA mDr i= fnukad 30-01-2015 ;kfpdkdrkZ dks ;Fkkle; gh miyC/k djk fn;k x;k gSA lwpukFkZ ,oa vko';d dk;Zokgh gsrq iszf"kr gSA 6 layXu%& mijksDrkuqlkjA v/kh{k.k ;a=h yksd LokLF; ;kaf=dh; foHkkx ifj;kstuk e.My pEcy laHkkx eqjSuk ¼e-iz-½"
5. The learned Single Judge found that appellant has not cooperated in early settlement of his dues as despite several opportunities given to him he did not come forward with any substantial material to contradict the miscellaneous advances due on him and disposed of the petition with a direction to the appellant to settle the issue of miscellaneous advance with department within one month, failing which the respondents would be at liberty to take steps for recovery of government money.
6. On going through the impugned order, we are of the view that learned Single Judge while disposing of the writ petition has taken care of all the issues raised by the appellant. We find no good ground to interfere in the impugned order. Consequently, writ appeal sans merit and is hereby dismissed.
Pending interlocutory application(s), if any, is also disposed off.
(RAVI MALIMATH) (DEEPAK KUMAR AGARWAL)
CHIEF JUSTICE JUDGE
ms/-
MADHU
SOODAN
PRASAD
2021.12.03
10:05:34 +05'00'