KIRAN SAHU Vs. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner have filed the present petition challenging the order dated 15.03.2004 passed by respondent No. 3.

(2.) The husband of the petitioner was working in the respondent/department and he died during the course of employment on 21.12001. After the death of husband of the petitioner, the respondents have with held an amount of Rs. 50,652/- from the gratuity of the husband of the petitioner as well as salary for the period w.e.f. 17.08.2001 to 009.2001 and 04.09.2001 to 05.10.2001 treating his period as extra ordinary leave. The respondents have passed an order dated 31.07.2001 thereby services of the husband of the petitioner had been transferred from Parasiya to Pandhurna. He was relieved for his joining at Pandhurna vide order dated 16.08.2001 passed by respondent No. 4. The said order received by the husband of the petitioner on 27.08.2001. He, therefore, immediately approached to Shri J.N. Shrivastava for receiving the charge but he refused the same. Thereafter, under the direction of respondent No. 3, the petitioner has submitted his joining on 03.09.2001 before the Office of CEO, Janpad Panchayat Pandhurna. Thereafter, an order was issued on 10.09.2001 by which the deceased was directed to hand over the charge to G. Thombre, however, he denied for the same and thus, although the petitioner has submitted his joining but he was not permitted to join the duties. The respondents, thereafter passed an order dated 15.03.2004 thereby treating the period from 17.08.2001 to 009.2001 and 04.09.2001 to 05.10.2001 as extra ordinary leave. It has further been submitted that he will not entitled to get any salary for the above period. Being aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner has submitted a representation before respondent No. 3. As the said representation was not replied, the petitioner, therefore, submitted a legal notice though his counsel claiming the salary of 49 days and also the amount of Rs. 50,652/- which has been deducted by the respondents from the gratuity of the deceased due to some alleged recovery. Earlier, the petitioner has filed a Civil Suit No. 7- B/2010 challenging the alleged action of the respondents. The said civil suit was withdrawn vide order dated 26.04.2011 with a liberty to take appropriate proceedings before the Competent Court. Therefore, the petitioner has filed the present petition.

(3.) Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner argues that the entire action of the respondents in deducting an amount of Rs. 50,652/- from the gratuity of the deceased employee as well as the order by which the respondents have treated the period absent from duties from 17.08.2001 to 02.09.2001 and 04.09.2001 to 05.10.2001 is illegal and arbitrary. He submits that in pursuance of the transfer order dated 31.07.2001 he was relieved on 16.08.2001 i.e. after a period of 15 days. The order dated 16.08.2001 was received by the husband of the petitioner on 27.08.2001 i.e. again after a period of 10 days. Thereafter, immediately he wants to join at transfer place but the person who is working at that place had refused to receive the charge. He, therefore, submitted his joining on 009.2001 before the office of CEO, Janpad Panchayat Pandhurna. Upto 05.10.2001, the respondents were not permitted the petitioner to join the duties, therefore, the said period could not have been treating as extra ordinary leave. So far as, deduction of amount of Rs. 50,652/- from the gratuity of the petitioner is concerned, learned counsel for the petitioner relied on the judgement passed by this Court in the case of Ramesh Chandra Gupta Vs. State of M.P. and Others, (2010) 4 MPLJ 345. According to which miscellaneous advance given to him in relation to the pending projects cannot be recovered. In light of the aforesaid, he submits that the impugned order may be set aside and the writ petition may be allowed.