WRIT PETITION No. 9932 of 2011 · Madhya Pradesh High Court
Case at a glance
- Bench
- SHANTANU KEMKAR
Provisions considered
- Constitution of India art. 226
Judgment
India, the petitioner has challenged the order dated 26.08.2011 (Annexure P/3) by which recovery of Rs.36,495/- has been ordered against him. The petitioner contends that the excess payment has been illegally recovered from him by the impugned order dated
26.08.2011 (Annexure P/3). Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the recovery of the excess payment has been ordered against him without there being any justification for the same. In the absence of any fraud or misrepresentation on the part of the petitioner, the same could not have been ordered and recovered. In support, learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on the judgment passed by the Supreme Court in the cases of Sahib Ram v. State of Haryana [1994 (2) SCC 52], Shyambabu Verma v. Union of India [1994 (2) SCC 521] and Col. B.J. Akkara (Retd.) v. Government of India & others [(2006) 11 SCC 709]. Having considered the aforesaid submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties and keeping in view the law laid 2 down by the Supreme Court in the cases of Sahib Ram (supra), Shyambabu Verma (supra) and Col. B.J. Akkara (Retd.) (supra), in my considered view, when the petitioner's pay was not fixed on account of any fraud or misrepresentation on the part of the petitioner, in the circumstances, the payment made to him could not have been recovered; that too abruptly after his retirement and without giving any show cause notice to him. In the circumstances, I am inclined to quash the impugned order dated 26.08.2011 (Annexure P/3) so far as it relates to the recovery of the excess payment made to the petitioner. The excess payment if already recovered from the petitioner, it be refunded to him within three months, failing which the petitioner shall be entitled for interest at the rate of 6% on the said amount from the date of recovery till payment. With the aforesaid observations and directions, the petition stands allowed to the extent indicated above. C. c. as per rules. Pithawe RC (Shantanu Kemkar) Judge
Precedent status how later indexed judgments have treated this case
No known negative treatment found in the Courts & Cases corpus.
This is a result about the indexed corpus, not a finding that the judgment remains good law. Coverage may be incomplete.