The State of M.P. and Others vs Ramesh Chand Gupta

Heard. This writ appeal u/s 2(1) of the Madhya Pradesh Uchcha Nyayalaya (Khyand Nyayapeeth Ko Appeal) Adhiniyam 2005 is filed by the appellants-State, challenging the order dated 4th August, 2010 passed by the writ Court in Writ Petition No. 5412/2008 (S).

The respondents are the legal heirs of deceased Ramesh Chand Gupta, who was working as a Superintendent Engineer in the Water Resources Department. It is stated that while he was in service he made certain miscellaneous advance payments to certain contractors for construction activities in the Department to the tune of Rs. 2,28,294/- and the appellants-State has withheld the GPF and Gratuity of deceased-employee as this amount is not accounted for.

Deceased Ramesh Chand Gupta filed a writ petition before the writ Court and the writ Court held that the miscellaneous advance to the tune of Rs. 2,28,294/- which is said to be recoverable from Mr. Gupta does not come within the purview of the recoverable Government dues, which is recoverable under Rule 65 of the Madhya Pradesh Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1976. After taking note of the provision of Rule 65 of the Rules of 1976, the learned writ Court has held that recovery from GPF or Gratuity can not be made.

Having heard learned counsel for the parties we find that the only question involved in this appeal is whether the aforesaid amount of 2,28,294/- can be recovered from the GPF or the Gratuity. Taking note of the provision of 65 and after considering the explanation clause, we are of the considered view that the learned writ Court has not committed any error. What could be recovered under Rule 65 of the Rules of 1976 is indicated there on and in the Explanation Clause reads as under:

The expression "ascertainable Government dues" includes balance of house building or conveyance advance, arrears of rent and other charges pertaining to occupation of Government accommodation, over-payment of pay and allowances and arrears of income tax deductible at source under the Income tax Act 1961.''

As the miscellaneous advance of Rs. 2,28,294/- does not come in any of the permissible recoverable dues as is indicated in Explanation 1 of Rule 65 of the Rules of 1976, the learned writ Court has not committed any error in restraining the recovery from the GPF or Gratuity payable to the deceased-employee. Accordingly, this writ appeal fails and is hereby dismissed.