GANPAT Vs. STATE OF M P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) CIVIL Servant - paid excess amount of pay on wrong promotion such amount cannot be recovered from retiral benefits as there was no fault on his part. By filing this writ under article 226/227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner seeks to challenge the order dated 13.9.2003 (Annexure P-2) whereby a direction is issued to recover a sum of Rs. 26,165/- from the retiral dues payable to the petitioner consequent upon his retirement. So the short question that arises for consideration is whether respondents are justified in issuing a direction as contained in the order dated 13.9.2003 to the effect for making what they (State) call it to be in the nature of excess amount paid to the petitioner while he was in service?

(2.) PETITIONER was in State employment. He was working on the post of "Junior Malariya Inspector". He retired from the service on 31.5.2003. On 13.9.2003 (Annexure P-2) the State (Treasury Officer) sent an impugned letter (Annexure P-2) stating therein that a sum of Rs. 26,165/- is to be recovered from the petitioner. No details as such were furnished in the letter as to why how and on what basis and against which dues this amount is liable to be recovered from the petitioner. It is this letter which is impugned in this petition.

(3.) THE petitions are allowed in part. There will be no order as to costs. Respectfully, following the verdict rendered by Supreme Court in Shyam Verma's case the impugned order of recovery cannot sustain. It has to be set aside. It is accordingly, set aside. In view of aforesaid discussion, the petition succeeds and is allowed. Impugned order dated 13.9.2003 (Annexure P-2) passed by respondent No. 3 in so far as it directs recovery of Rs. 26,165/- under the head ' 'excess salary'' is set aside by issuance of writ of certiorari.