IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT JABALPUR BEFORE HON’BLE SHRI JUSTICE SANJAY DWIVEDI ON THE 06^th OF FEBRUARY, 2024 WRIT PETITION No.28625 of 2021 BETWEEN:-

SUDHIR KUMAR PATIL S/O LATE SHRI RAMJI RAO PATIL AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS OCCUPATION RETIRED SUB ENGINEER O/O EXECUTIVE ENGINEERING PUBLIC HEALTH ENGINEERING DIVISION BALAGHAT R/O WARD NO.29 SHRI VINAYAK RAO HANUMAN CHOWK STATION ROAD BALAGHAT, DISTRICT BALAGHAT (MP)

.....PETITIONER (BY SHRI DINESH KUMAR UPADHYAY – ADVOCATE)

AND

1. THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH, THROUGH PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC HEALTH ENGINEERING MANTRALAYA, VALLABH BHAWAN, BHOPAL, MP

2. ENGINEER IN CHIEF, PUBLIC HEALTH ENGINEERING BHOPAL, MP

3. EXECUTIVE ENGINEERING PUBLIC HEALTH ENGINEERING DIVISION BALAGHAT

4. DISTRICT TREASURY OFFICER, DISTRICT BALAGHAT ......RESPONDENTS (BY SHRI PUNIT SHROTI – GOVERNMENT ADVOCATE)

..............................................................................................................................................................................

This petition coming on for admission this day, the court passed the following:

ORDER

Since pleadings are complete and learned counsel for the parties are ready to argue the matter finally, therefore, at their joint request, it is heard finally.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that this petition is directed against the recovery made by the respondents/authorities whereby they have recovered an amount Rs.07,05,266/- from the retiral dues of the petitioner. He submits that the said recovery was in respect of some excess payment made to the petitioner while he was in service. He further submits that as per the respondents, the actual excess payment made to the petitioner was of Rs.04,06,805/- over which they have levied penal interest @ Rs.02,98,461/- and as such, the total amount of recovery had come to Rs.07,05,266/-.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner got retired from service w.e.f. 30.06.2021 whereas the amount which is said to have been paid in excess was relating to the period between 1995 to 2015. According to him, it is informed to the petitioner that some increment was wrongly paid to him. However, he submits that in the said mistake committed by the respondents, there was no false representation made by the petitioner. It is also submitted that during the whole service tenure of the petitioner, he was never informed about the said mistake and even at the time of issuing the PPO, the said mistake was not pointed out by the respondents. It is further submitted that the service book of the petitioner was sent to the Joint Director (Treasury & Accounts) on 04.07.2017 for getting approval of payment of Seventh Pay Commission, but even during that period, the mistake committed by the respondents was not pointed out by them.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that though the gratuity amount of the petitioner was of Rs.16,70,592/- but the respondents after deducting the amount of recovery i.e. Rs.07,05,266/- had only made the payment of Rs.09,65,326/- to him. He submits that looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, the recovery made by the respondents is otherwise illegal and cannot be made from the petitioner. In support of his contention, he has placed reliance upon a case of Supreme Court reported in (2015) 4 SCC 334 [State of Punjab and others Vs. Rafiq Masih (White Washer) and others] and also in the orders passed by the coordinate Bench of this Court on 09.12.2021 in W.P. No.12076 of 2017 [Chandradutta Shukla Vs. The State of Madhya Pradesh and others] and also on 06.10.2023 in W.P. No.12568 of 2016 [Sukhchen Napit Vs. The State of Madhya Pradesh and others] in which relying upon the case of Rafiq Masih (supra), the Court has quashed the recovery. 5. On the other hand, learned Government Advocate has relied upon the reply filed by the respondents and submitted that in view of the law laid down by the Supreme Court in the case reported in 20