The central legal point established in the judgment is that a retired government employee is not liable to pay interest on excess amounts claimed by the State Government as per Rule 65 of the Pension Rules.

JUDGMENT :

Subodh Abhyankar, J.

1. The petitioner, who is a retired employee, having retired from the post of Subedar, has filed this writ petition under 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking the following reliefs:-

(1) It is, therefore, prayed that this Hon'ble Court may pleased to issue appropriate writ, order or direction and the order of recovery (P/3) and (P/7) may kindly be modified and the interest charged on the principal amount may kindly be quashed.

(2) That, the interest amount charged in the order of recovery (P/3) may kindly be quashed.

(3) That, respondent may kindly be directed to refund the amount charged in head of interest with an interest of 12 percent per annum from the date of recovery.

(4) That, any other relief which this Hon'ble Court deem fit may grant to the petitioner.

2. The case of the petitioner is that she was serving in the police department on the post of Subedar and thereafter retired from the service on 31.5.2013. The petitioner was given the benefit of ad-hoc increment of Rs.70/- per month. However, vide orders dated 29.3.2019 (Annexure P/3) and 13.2.2020 (Annexure P/7), the Government has sought to recover the excess amount paid to the petitioner in respect of additional ad-hoc increment of Rs. 70/-.

3. Shri Amit Raj, learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that so far as the principal amount of ad-hoc increment is concerned, which has been given to the petitioner, she has no objection regarding the recovery of the said amount. However, it is submitted that the respondents are also bent upon to recover the interest amount of the said principal amount which cannot be claimed by the State Government, as the petitioner was not at fault if the excess amount has been paid to her y the respondent. It is further submitted that the principal amount is 8,90,632/-, whereas the interest part of the same is Rs.12,44,993/-. Learned counsel for the petitioner has also relied upon various judgments rendered by the co-ordinate Bench of this Court. He has also specifically referred to a decision rendered by the ordinate bench of this Court vide order dated 13.9.201(sic) passed in Writ Petition No. 826/2017 (Rajendra Bhawsar vs. State of M.P. and others) wherein, in similar circumstances, this Court has held as under:-

"6. It is true that the respondent may recover the excess amount from the retiral dues after his retirement in certain occasion, but petitioner was not at fault in getting ad-hoc increment of Rs. 70/-. The respondent has recovered the amount paid in excess to the petitioner, but they have wrongly recovered the interest amount. Since the petitioner was not at fault, hence he is not liable to pay the interest, therefore, the respondents are directed to refund the interest amount of Rs. 1,64,990/- to the petitioner within a period of 60 days from the date of production of certified copy of this order."

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has further submitted that even otherwise, according to Rule 65 of the Madhya Pradesh Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1976, the amount of interest cannot be recovered from a retired government employee as the said rule refers to recovery and adjustment of retiral dues of the government employee but does not include interest. It is thus submitted that the amount of interest claimed by the respondent/State in the impugned orders is liable to be quashed.

5. To support his contentions, Shri Amit Raj has also relied upon the decision of a co-ordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Ramesh Chandra Gupta vs. State of M.P. and others reported in 2010 (4) M.P.L.J. 345 wherein this Court has held that the State Government cannot recover any amount which is not mentioned in the Rule 65 of the Pension Rules of 1976.

6. On the other hand, learned Panel Lawyer for the respondent/State has also filed the reply and has opposed the prayer. It is submitted that this Court under consideration of the decision of the Larger Bench as in W.A. No. 815/2017 the Division Bench of th