BABULAL DHANTOLIA Vs. STATE OF M.P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner, a retired Inspector of Police, preferred this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution, seeking direction for the respondents to refund the amount of Rs.92183/ - to the petitioner with interest.

(2.) THE petitioner retired on attaining the age of superannuation on 30.9.2002. The respondents initially only granted provisional pension to the petitioner. Thereafter, the order dated 9.11.2006 (Annexure P/2) was passed, wherein it was indicated that a recovery of Rs.92183/ - is required to be made against the head of 'Excess Payment'. The petitioner preferred his representation (Annexure P/3). The respondents, in turn, directed the petitioner to deposit Rs.1100/ - as balance amount of recovery and till petitioner deposited the said amount, his pension was not started. Under compelling circumstances, the petitioner had to deposit Rs.1100/ - and thereafter his monthly pension was started from April 2007. It is further contended that on 5.2.2007 the recovery was shown to the tune of Rs.92183/ -. Against that, the petitioner preferred a representation (Annexure P/4) but the said representation could not fetch any result.

(3.) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner assailed this recovery on two grounds. Firstly, it is urged that the direction of recovery entails civil consequences and, therefore, could not have been passed without affording opportunity. Secondly, there was no misrepresentation of fact by the petitioner and, therefore, recovery is impermissible. In support of his contentions, he relied on (Bhagwan Shukla vs. Union of India and others, 1994 AIR(SC) 2480) and (Ram Siya Kanojia vs. State of MP and others,2013 ILR(MP) 70).