Basantrao vs State of Madhya Pradesh

Prakash Shrivastava, J.—Heard finally with consent.

This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner challenging the order dated 11/4/2014 whereby after the retirement of the petitioner, a direction has been issued to recover the amount of Rs.2,07,131/-.

The case of the petitioner is that he was working as Varishth Udyan Vikas Adhikari and had retired from service on 29/3/2014 and thereafter the impugned order of recovery has been passed. The further case of the petitioner is that the impugned order of recovery has been passed without giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and the recovery at this stage will cause serious hardship to the petitioner and that the benefit was extended to the petitioner not on account of any misrepresentation or fraud. He has placed reliance upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in the matter of Shyam Babu Verma and Others Vs. Union of India (UOI) and Others, , in the matter of Sahibram Vs. State of Haryana and others reported in 1994(2) SCC 52, in the matter of Syed Abdul Qadir and Others Vs. State of Bihar and Others, .

Learned counsel for State has submitted that the impugned order of recovery has been passed since the petitioner was wrongly granted the benefit of second kramonnati with effect from 1/1/1996 and the said benefit has therefore, been withdrawn. She has placed reliance upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in the matter of Chandi Prasad Uniyal and Others Vs. State of Uttarakhand and Others, .

Having heard the learned counsel for parties and on the perusal of the record, it is found that no opportunity of hearing was given to the petitioner before passing the impugned order. It has further been found that though the plea of no misrepresentation or fraud on the part of the petitioner is not sustainable in view of the judgment of the Supreme Court in the matter of Chandi prasad Uniyal (supra), but it is a case of great hardship since the recovery is sought to be made after the retirement of the petitioner. The division bench of this court by the judgment dated 9th November 2012 in W.A. No.168/2012 (State of M.P. and others Vs. Om Prakash S/o Daulat Singh Pure) has considered the judgment of the Supreme Court in the matter of Chandi Prasad Uniyial (supra) as well as the issue of hardship and has held as under:-

"7. We have gone through the order passed by the Supreme Court in the case of Chandi Prasad Uniyal and others Vs. State of Uttarakhand and others (supra). We find that the Supreme Court in the said judgment has observed the directions contained in the case of Syed Abdul Qadir and Others Vs. State of Bihar and Others, and Col. (Retd.) B.J. Akkara Vs. The Govt. of India and Others, as also in the case of Shyam Babu Verma and Others Vs. Union of India (UOI) and Others, and Sahib Ram 1994(2) SCC 52 wherein the department is restrained from recovery of excess amount keeping in view the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case since the beneficiaries had either retired or were on the verge of retirement and so as to avoid any hardship to them.

In the present case also, the benefit extended to the writ petitioner was sought to be recovered on his retirement. In our considered view, this if allowed to stand, would cause great hardship to a retired employee.

In the circumstances, we are of the view that no case for interference in the order passed by learned Single Judge is made out.

As a result, the appeal fails and is hereby dismissed"

The present case is also a case similar to the one which has been decided by Division Bench of this Court as above. This is also a case of great hardship when the amount is sought to be recovered at the fag end of service after the retirement of the petitioner.

Considering the aforesaid, the writ petition is allowed by setting aside the order dated 11/4/2014 to the extent it directs the recovery of a sum of Rs.2,07,131/-. However, the order of the respondents to the effect that the petitioner was not entitled for the benefit of second kramonnati is maintained. The respondents are directed to refund the amount, if any, recovered in pursuance to the impugned order within a period of three months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order.

C.C. as per rules.