DAYAL SHARMA Vs. STATE OF MP

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner before this Court, a retired Government servant has filed his present petition being aggrieved by a recovery of Rs. 72.533/- after his retirement.

(2.) The contention of the petitioner is that he started his service career as a Constable on 6.2.1965 and thereafter was promoted to the post of Head Constable on 20.10.1988. The petitioner has further stated that he has attained the age of superannuation on 31.12.2006. The grievance of the petitioner is that a PPO was issued, enclosed as Annexure P/1, wherein the respondents have recovered a sum of Rs. 72,535/- from the terminal dues of the petitioner. The petitioner's contention is that such a recovery is illegal and respondents cannot be permitted to recover the aforesaid amount from the terminal dues of the petitioner. The learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon a judgment delivered by the apex Court in the case of Sahib Ram v. State of Haryana and others, 1995 Supp. (1) SCC 18. The learned counsel has also relied upon a judgment delivered by the apex Court in the case of Shyam Babu Verma and others v. Union of India and others, (1994) 2 SCC 521 and has prayed for quashing of the recovery in the matter. He has lastly relied upon a judgment delivered by a Division Bench of this Court in the case of State of Madhya Pradesh v. Smt. Jamwanti Gujral, 2003 (3) MPHT 6 (NOC), wherein, the Division Bench of this Court relying upon a judgment, delivered in the case of Sahib Ram v. State of Haryana and others had held that recovery could not be made from the pensioners.

(3.) A reply has been filed by the respondent/State and it has been stated by the respondents that the recovery against the petitioner is on account of erroneous fixation of pay. It has been admitted by the respondents that the petitioner was appointed as a Constable on 5.2.1965 and was promoted to the post of Head Constable on 19.9.1988. The respondents have also admitted that the petitioner has attained the age of superannuation on 31.12.2006. The respondents have further stated that at the time the petitioner was promoted, his pay fixation was to be done as per the FR 22 (A) II, however the pay fixation was erroneously done by the authorities as per the FR 22D and therefore with effect from 19.9.1988 to 19.9.1995, the petitioner has drawn excess salary in the pay scale of Rs. 1150-1800. The respondents have further stated that with effect from 1.1.1996, the pay of the petitioner was fixed at Rs. 4,620/- in the pay scale of Rs. 3500-5200, however, that was also on the basis of erroneous calculation and the pay of the petitioner should have been fixed at Rs. 4,380/-. The respondents have further stated that the petitioner has drawn the excess salary with effect from 1.1.1996 to 31.10.2006 also. The contention of the respondent/State is that a notice was issued by the respondents on 28.11.2006 and the petitioner has submitted a reply on the same day i.e. 28.11.2006 stating therein that he does not have any objection in case a recovery is made from the terminal dues. The respondents have prayed for dismissal of the writ petition. Heard learned counsel for the parties at length and perused the record.