Madhya Pradesh High Court
Dr. Ashok Kumar Parashar vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 23 June, 2017
WP-16633-2016
(DR. ASHOK KUMAR PARASHAR Vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH)
23-06-2017
Shri A.K.Chaturvedi, learned counsel for the petitioner.
Shri M.K.Kushwaha, learned P.L. for the
respondents/State.
Heard.
The petitioner has filed the present petition challenging recovery orders dated 22.7.2016, 3.8.2016 and 30.8.2016 passed by respondent No.6 thereby recovery of amount of Rs.28,10,847/- has to be made from the retrial dues of the petitioner.
The petitioner was working on the post of Medical Officer, he retired on 31.8.2016 on attaining the age of superannuation from the department of Public Health and Family Welfare. Prior to retirement, an order was issued on 22.7.2016 alleging erroneous pay fixation since 01.01.2006 and it was informed to the petitioner that an amount of Rs.28,10,847/- would be effected from the retrial dues of the petitioner. After the objection made by respondent No.5, matter was forwarded to respondent No.9 and an amount of Rs. 28,10,847/- was calculated towards the recovery from the petitioner. The principle amount is of Rs.15,41, 535/- and Rs.12,69,312/- has been levied as interest. Being aggrieved by that order, the petitioner has filed the present petition. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in absence of fraud or misrepresentation on the part of the petition, no recovery can be made from the petitioner. He relied on the judgment passed by the Apex Court in the case of State of Punjab & Ors. Vs. Rafiq Masih(White Washer) and in light of the said judgment he submits that any recovery made from retired employee is improper in law.
The respondents have filed their reply and in reply respondents have said that the petitioner was working on the post of Medical Officer. Vide order dated 07.07.2009, benefit of Senior Pay Scale and Selection Grade has been extended to the petitioner under four Level Pay Scale approved in pursuance to the circular dated 23.05.2009. He further submitted that circular dated 23.05.2009 was subsequently cancelled by the State Government vide order dated 30.05.2012. After cancellation of circular dated 23.05.2009 benefit which was extended to the petitioner vide order dated 07.07.2009 was required to be withdrawn but the same was not withdrawn and the petitioner was continuously extended said benefit till his retirement. After retirement when pension case of the petitioner has been placed before the Jt. Director, Treasury & Accounts, an objection was raised in respect of illegal grant of benefit to the petitioner which is clear from this order of recovery. He further relied Rule 65 of M.P. Civil Services Pension Rules and submits that it is incumbent upon the part of the retired Government servant to clear all the dues before his retirement. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. From perusal of the record, it reveals that the petitioner is retired Govt. employee and order recovery of amount has been issued after his retirement, thus there is no misrepresentation on the part of the petitioner.
As per the judgment passed by Apex Court in the case of State of Panjab(supra) no recovery from the retired employee is permissible in law. So far as objection relating applicability of Rule 65 of Pension Rules is concerned, Rule 65 of Pension Rules is applicable in respect of a Government servant who is retiring, or is on the verge of retirement but has not actually retired. However, in the present case the petitioner is a retired employee and, therefore, rule 65 would be not applicably in the case of the petitioner. That this Court in the case of Shatrughan Singh Vs. The State of M.P. decided on 26 th April, 2017 in W.P.No.7101-2015 has held as under:-
âIt does not apply to a retired Government servant. The word âretiring Government Servantâ is signification in its connotation. Rule 65 does not use the term retired Government servant. The action therefore, contemplated by Section 65 is in respect of a Government servant who is retiring, or is on the verge of retirement but has not actually retired. Similarly, same is the case so far as duty of a retiring Government servant is concerned, it is not attributable to a retired Government servant. In the instant case it cannot be said that the petitioner failed in his duty.â In the light of the aforesaid judgment, objection raised by the respondents is not maintainable. In view of the aforesaid the writ petition is allowed. Impugned orders dated 27.7.2016, 3.8.2016 and 30.8.2016 so far as it relates recovery of amount of Rs.28,10,847/- are here by queshed and if during this period any amount is recovered by the respondents then same shall be refunded to the petitioner.
(MISS VANDANA KASREKAR) JUDGE