RAMESH CHAND SHARMA Vs. STATE OF M.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioners, Store Keepers, reached the age of superannnuation on 31.10.2015 and are retired employees, have been subjected to recovery purportedly on an objection raised by the audit party vide impugned order - Annexure P/1.

(2.) Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that if according to the respondents there was wrong fixation of pay in the year 1991 and 1996, which led to alleged erroneous fixation in subbsequent period, this by itself shall not entitle the respondents to issue order for recovery as the cases of the petitioners have fully protected and covered by the law laid down by the Supreme Court in the case of State of Punjab Vs. Rafiq Masih - (2015) 4 SCC 334, where under in para 18 it has been held as under :-

(3.) Learned counsel refers to Clause (ii) of the aforesaid judgment to bolster his submission.