GAYAPRASAD Vs. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition, under Article 226 of Constitution of India, has been filed seeking the following relief (s):-

(2.) It is submitted by learned counsel for petitioner that petitioner was working as Dresser in District Hospital, Ashok Nagar (M.P.). Petitioner stood retired on 31/5/2016. At the time of retirement, service book was referred to Treasury and Accounts Department to check whether increment of wages and pay fixation was done as per Rules or not and as per their objection, petitioner was given excess payment. On that basis, recovery of Rs.2,37,672.00 has been ordered.

(3.) Learned counsel for petitioner submits that without giving any show-cause notice or without affording an opportunity of hearing, without following the principle of natural justice and on the basis of objections raised by Treasury Officer, impugned order of recovery Annexure P-1, calculating recovery to the tune of Rs.2,37,672.00, has been issued. Learned counsel for petitioner submits that petitioner stood retired from the post of Dresser which is a Class III post and recovery after retirement of employee is not permissible. It is submitted that alleged excess amount has been paid on account of wrong fixation of salary of petitioner carried out from 1/4/2006 till 1/7/2015, however, petitioner is not responsible for wrong fixation. To strengthen his submission, learned counsel for petitioner placed reliance on the Full Bench decision of this Court in the case of State of Madhya Pradesh & others Vs. Jagdish Prasad Dubey reported in (2024) 2 M.P.L.J.198.