ASHOK KUMAR TIWARI 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.) Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner was appointed to the post of Sub-Inspector on 1/6/1983 and was promoted to the post of Inspector in 2007. He retired from service on 31/12/2015. During the course of his service, the benefit of first and second Kramonnati on completion of 10 and 20 years of service was granted to him. It is further submitted that on account of certain audit objections, the pay scale was not approved by the Department of Accounts and Treasury with effect from 1/9/2007 and no reason was assigned while extending the date from 1/4/2006 to 1/9/2007. It is further submitted that without affording any opportunity of hearing, without issuing any show- cause notice and without complying with the principles of natural justice, recovery of Rs.2,97,475.00 has been mentioned in the PPO (Annexure P/1) after his retirement. It is further submitted that the petitioner has already retired and was a Class-III employee; therefore, recovery cannot be initiated against him. It is further submitted that identical controversy involved in the present case has already been decided by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court vide order dtd. 1/8/2019 passed in W.P. No.465 of 2017 [ Hari Singh Parmar v. State of M.P. and others].

(3.) Per contra, learned Government Advocate for the respondent/State submits that prior to the implementation of the Sixth Pay Commission with effect from 1/1/2006, petitioner had reached the basic pay of Rs.7,550.00 and then in existing pay scale. Upon implementation of the Sixth Pay Commission, the corresponding revised pay was required to be fixed at Rs.14,050.00 + 3,200/-. However, petitioner was found to have been paid Rs.14,570.00 + 3,600/-. It is further submitted that petitioner was also extended the benefit of first and second time-bound pay scales prior to the admissible dates, whereas in view of the Finance Department circular dtd. 8/8/2016, such benefit was admissible only from 1/9/2007. It is further submitted that the aforesaid error in pay fixation was rectified pursuant to the objection raised by the Treasury Officer and in view of the undertaking furnished by petitioner, recovery proceedings were initiated. It is submitted that the action of the respondents is in accordance with the rules and instructions and no illegality has been committed by them. Learned counsel for the respondent/State supports the impugned recovery and opposes the prayer made by learned counsel for the petitioner.