Lal Chand Gupta vs The State of Madhya Pradesh

K.K. Trivedi, J.—It appears that though the pay fixation of the petitioner was checked way back in the year 2004 and certain notes were made by the Joint Director, Treasury and Accounts in the service book of the petitioner, at the relevant time the pay fixation of the petitioner was not done in appropriate manner. Subsequently on attaining the age of superannuation, the pay fixation of the petitioner is redone in the year 2013 and amount of recovery is calculated. Since now the petitioner has retired, the amount is sought to be recovered from the retiral dues of the petitioner and his claim has not been finalised. It is contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that such a situation was examined by this Court in the case of Ram Siya Kanojia Vs. State of M.P. and Others, and the recovery orders were quashed. Learned Govt. Advocate submits that such a situation is required to be examined by the respondents whether the steps were taken for calculation of excess amount and recovery thereof from the petitioner at the relevant time or not. It is contended that in view of the law laid down by the Apex Court in the case of Chandi Prasad Uniyal and Others Vs. State of Uttarakhand and Others, the petitioner would not be entitled to the relief claimed in the writ petition.

This Court while considering such an objection has taken note of the law laid down by the Apex Court in the case of Sahib Ram Vs. State of Haryana and Others, , Syed Abdul Qadir and Others Vs. State of Bihar and Others, and in the case of Yogeshwar Prasad and Others Vs. National Inst., Edu. Planning and Admn. and Others, and has held that in certain cases still the recovery cannot be made from the persons like petitioner, but the amount is to be recovered from those who have committed misconduct in not discharging their duties properly despite raising objections by the treasury and accounts.

Accordingly, this writ petition is disposed of with a direction that the respondents will examine whether timely action was taken for refixation of pay of the petitioner and if any excess amount was paid to him, to recover the same from the petitioner or not by the officials of the department. In case it is found that no such action was taken at the relevant time, no recovery would be made from the petitioner with respect to the alleged excess amount of salary. However, the respondents would be at liberty to recover the said amount from those who are found guilty of not taking steps in proper time.

The writ petition stands finally disposed of. Certified copy as per rules.