SIYA KANOJIA Vs. STATE OF M P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner has come before this Court ventilating his grievance against the order dated 6-7-2010 (Annexure P-4), by which after his retirement, verifying the pay of the petitioner, it has been held that the petitioner was paid the amount in excess to the amount due to him as wrong fixation was done. It is contended that the petitioner was not responsible for such excess payment of salary as neither the salary was revised by him in the revised pay scale nor he made any representation in that respect. If at the time of retirement such an objection was raised, the same was not to be accepted in terms of the law laid down by the Apex Court in the case of Sahib Ram Vs. State of Haryana and others, 1995 Supp (1) SCC 18. It is contended that in similar circumstances, this Court in the case of Bholaram Barmaiya Vs. State of M.P. and others, W.P. No. 14627/2007 and in other analogous petitions has passed the order on 25--1-2011 quashing such order of recovery. It is contended that only because of such act, since the recovery is ordered against the petitioner, the same is liable to be quashed.

(2.) PER contra, it is contended by learned Government Advocate that the Revision of Pay Rules were made and the salary of the petitioner was fixed way back in the said revised pay scale. Such revision was done erroneously and excess payment of salary was made to the petitioner. At the time of retirement, it was found that the petitioner was paid an amount of Rs. 53,727/- in excess to the amount payable to him and, therefore, it was directed that the said amount be recovered in 297 installments from the pension of the petitioner. The said return of the respondents was not found sufficient, therefore, on the orders of this Court, an additional return has been filed by the respondents categorically demonstrating that the petitioner was required to furnish an Undertaking as prescribed under the relevant Revision of Pay Rules and such undertakings were given by the petitioner on 16-4-1983 and 31-5-1990. In the said undertaking, it was categorically stated that the revision of pay of the petitioner was provisional and if after finalisation of pay fixation, it is found that excess amount was paid to the petitioner, the same will be refunded by the petitioner or else it would be recovered from the salary of the petitioner or from the pension and gratuity. In case of death of the person concerned, it was further prescribed in the undertaking that the recovery would be made from the legal heirs and the said amount would be recovered treating it as arrears of land revenue. It is thus contended by the respondents that in view of the aforesaid clear undertaking, the petitioner was required to refund the amount, but since the said amount was not refunded, ultimately the recovery was ordered from the retiral dues of the petitioner. It is contended that such a claim made by the petitioner in the writ petition is misconceived and as such the petition is liable to be dismissed.

(3.) THE law in this respect is very clear. In the case of Sahib Ram (supra), the Apex Court has categorically prescribed that the recoveries from the employees can be affected only if it is found that the employee concerned was responsible for causing such loss to the State exchequer or that he has misrepresented the fact before the authorities for obtaining any benefit for himself. This particular aspect was again considered by this Court in the case of Mahendra Kumar Dubey Vs. State of M.P. and others, W.P. (S) No. 3075/2003, in which it was observed thus :-