SUSHMA PYASI Vs. STATE OF M P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is directed against the order dated 22-9-2009 by which while sanctioning the final payment of death-cum-retirement gratuity to the petitioner on account of death of her husband, an amount of Rs.1,95,289/- has been deducted on the ground that the husband of the petitioner was in the employment of Police Department and has worked for almost 35 years. However, the husband of the petitioner while in service, died on 10-12-2008. At the relevant time the husband of the petitioner was working as Additional Superintendent of Police, Damoh. It was necessary on the part of the respondents to disburse the final payment of death-cum-retirement gratuity. Timely the action was not taken and ultimately when the same was released on 22-9-2009, it was said that an amount of Rs. 1,95,289/- was to be recovered from the said amount being excess payment of salary to the late husband of the petitioner. A demand was raised by the petitioner asking the details of alleged excess payment and vide a memo dated 12-7-2012 the petitioner was informed that the husband of the petitioner was paid an excess amount on account of improper pay fixation in between April, 1981 to November, 2008. However, no further details were given except the chart annexing with the said memo where the calculation was shown as to how it was assessed that excess payment was made to the husband of the petitioner. It is, thus, contended in the petition that such an action on the part of respondents is bad in law. Without affording opportunity of hearing no amount was to be recovered from the gratuity payable to the petitioner. This being so, it is claimed that the order impugned directing recovery from the gratuity payable to the petitioner is liable to be quashed.

(2.) ON receipt of the notice of this writ petition, the respondents have filed their return. They have contended that in fact the husband of the petitioner while was in service, was granted certain pay fixation. In fact the family pension case of the petitioner was prepared and sent for sanction. The respondent No. 4 took an objection with respect to the improper fixation of pay of the husband of the petitioner and directed that the revised fixation of pay be done and case be again submitted for payment of gratuity to the petitioner. Since this was intimated vide memo dated 3-7-2009, objections were looked into, removed and thereafter the case was sent for payment of gratuity to the petitioner. In terms of the provisions made under the M. P. Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1976, such an amount paid in excess to the husband of the petitioner was required to be recovered and, therefore, the said amount has been deducted from the gratuity. It is put forth 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, 2012(4) MPLJ (S.C.) 495 = (2012) 8 SCC 417, if such an amount is recovered from the gratuity payable to the petitioner, no wrong is committed by the respondents and, therefore, the writ petition is liable to be dismissed.

(3.) IT is not disputed by the respondents that the husband of the petitioner was in continuous service of the respondents on the post of D.S.P. Even according to them, the salary of the husband of the petitioner was required to be revised w.e.f. 1-9-1981 at Rs.1090/- per month but instead of revising the salary in the said stage, it was fixed at Rs.1,290/- per month. It is also not disputed by the respondents that throughout the service of the husband of the petitioner, various pay commission recommendations were accepted, the pay revision rules were made and accordingly the salary of the husband of the petitioner was revised. It is also not disputed by them that all such revision was done not by the husband of the petitioner himself but by the departmental authorities. It was not the folly on the part of the husband of the petitioner if on revision his pay was revised on a wrong stage. That being so, it was not correct on the part of the respondents to make recovery of huge amount from the gratuity payable to the widow of such an officer after the death of officer. Nothing has been explained by the respondents as to why throughout the services of the husband of the petitioner this mistake or error could not be pointed out. The pay revision is always done after due verification of fixation of pay by the Joint Director, Treasury and Accounts. Unless such an approval is granted, the salary in the revised pay scale is not to be disbursed. This being so, without there being a justified reason, holding that a Government officer or servant has received the money intentionally knowing fully well that he was not entitled to such payment of money, same cannot be recovered. At any rate, the husband of the petitioner cannot be held responsible for that.