Madhya Pradesh High Court
Ravendra Kumar Singh vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 7 May, 2024
Author: Sanjay Dwivedi
Bench: Sanjay Dwivedi
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE SANJAY DWIVEDI
ON THE 7 th OF MAY, 2024
WRIT PETITION No. 5105 of 2021
BETWEEN:-
RAVENDRA KUMAR SINGH S/O SHRI B.L. SINGH, AGED
ABOUT 63 YEARS, OCCUPATION: RET. DEPUTY
SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE KHUTEHE SIRMOUR
ROAD REWA (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....PETITIONER
(BY SHRI SHASHANK PANDEY - ADVOCATE)
AND
1. THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH THRO. THE
PRINCIPAL SECRETARY HOME (POLICE)
DEPARTMEANT VALLABH BHAWAN BHOPAL
(M.P.) (MADHYA PRADESH)
2. DIRECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE POLICE
HEADQUARTERS JAHANGIRABAD BHOPAL MP
(MADHYA PRADESH)
3. SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE POLICE
HEADQUARTERS REWA (MADHYA PRADESH)
4. JOINT DIRECTOR TREASURY AND ACCOUNT
DIRECTORATE OF TREASURY AND ACCOUNTS
REWA (MADHYA PRADESH)
5. DISTRICT PENSION OFFICER DIRECTORATE OF
PENSION REWA (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....RESPONDENTS
(BY SHRI LOKESH JAIN - PANEL LAWYER)
This petition coming on for admission this day, th e court passed the
following:
ORDER
Signature Not Verified Signed by: DEVASHISH MISHRA Signing time: 5/10/2024 3:55:28 PM 2 Since pleadings are complete and learned counsel for the parties are ready to argue the matter, therefore, at their joint request, it is heard finally.
2. The petitioner by the instant petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, is challenging the order dated 29.01.2021 (Annexure-P/9) whereby in view of the objection raised by the office of Joint Director, Treasury and Accounts in respect of an excess payment made to the petitioner while granting him the benefit of Second and Third Kramonnati Vetanman, an amount of Rs.5,45,663/- (wherein the amount of Rs.03,11,094/- was towards principal whereas Rs.2,34,569/- was towards interest), was recovered from his retiral dues. The petitioner was granted the benefit of Second Kramonnati Vetanman vide order dated 31.10.2010 whereas the benefit of Third Kramonnati Vetanman was granted to him vide order dated 01.07.2014.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner got retired from service on 31.03.20210 and from his retiral dues, an amount of Rs.5,45,663/- was recovered by the respondents on the head of excess payment made to him because of wrong fixation of pay. He submits that without there being any fault on the part of the petitioner, the said recovery cannot be initiated from his retiral dues. He further submits that in view of the law laid down by the Supreme Court in a case reported in (2015) 4 SCC 334 [State of Punjab and others Vs. Rafiq Masih (White Washer) and others] and also by the Full Bench of this Court in Writ Appeal No.815 of 2017 [The State of Madhya Pradesh and others Vs. Jagdish Prasad Dubey] and other connected matters, no recovery can be made from the petitioner.
4. On the other hand, learned Panel Lawyer relying upon the return filed by them has opposed the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioner Signature Not Verified and submitted that since an indemnity bond and undertaking were given by the Signed by: DEVASHISH MISHRA Signing time: 5/10/2024 3:55:28 PM 3 petitioner, therefore, in view of the law laid down by the Supreme Court in a case reported in (2012) 8 SCC 417 [Chandi Prasad Unyal Vs. State of Uttarakhand], recovery can be initiated from the petitioner and under such circumstances, the recovery cannot be said to be illegal.
5. Considering the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the parties, on perusal of record and the document i.e. indemnity bond on which the respondents are relying upon, I am of the opinion that though the indemnity bond does not reveal as to on what date it was given by the petitioner, but from the recital of that document, it is clear that it was given by the petitioner at the time of settling his retiral dues. The Full Bench of this Court in the case of Jagdish Prasad Dubey (supra) has observed that the undertaking or indemnity bond, if any, is given at the relevant point of time, then the excess payment made to an employee can be recovered from him/her. The observation made by the Full Bench in this regard reads as under:-
'27. Hence for all these reasons, we answer the Question No.1 to the effect that recovery can be ordered to be effected from the pensionary benefits or from the salary in view of the undertaking or indemnity bond given by the employee at the stage when the grant of benefit of pay fixation is made.' Here as is clear from record that before or at the relevant point of time, when wrong pay fixation was being made, no such indemnity bond or undertaking was taken from the petitioner whereas it was taken at the time of settling his retiral dues and under such circumstances, so far as the recovery of excess payment made to the petitioner because of wrong pay fixation is concerned, that indemnity bond is irrelevant.Signature Not Verified Signed by: DEVASHISH MISHRA Signing time: 5/10/2024 3:55:28 PM 4
6. Thus, the impugned order dated 29.01.2021 (Annexure-P/9) is hereby quashed. Accordingly, the respondents are directed to refund the amount to the petitioner if any is recovered from him under the head of excess payment made to him because of wrong pay fixation within a period of three months from the date of receipt of copy of this order making it clear that if the amount if any is recovered from the petitioner is not refunded to him within the stipulated period, then the same shall carry interest @8% till its actual payment made to the petitioner.
7. With the aforesaid, the petition stands allowed.
(SANJAY DWIVEDI) JUDGE dm Signature Not Verified Signed by: DEVASHISH MISHRA Signing time: 5/10/2024 3:55:28 PM