Full Judgment
1 HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH : JABALPUR. Writ Petition No.10031/2009 G.D. Agrawal Vs. Chief General Manager and others PRESENT : Hon’ble Shri Justice K.K. Trivedi. J.
Shri B.P. Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri Piyush Dharmadhikar and Shri G.P. Dubey, learned counsel for the respondents. ORDER
(01.10.2013) Initially the petition was filed challenging the validity of the recovery started against the petitioner by the respondents vide order dated 30 th April, 2009 wherein it was directed that a recovery of Rs.2,535/- per month was to be done from the pension of the petitioner for an amount of Rs.53,225/-, said to be paid in excess as provident fund amount, to the petitioner at the time of retirement. It was contended by the petitioner that such an order could not have been issued in the manner it was and a representation against such an action was filed which was pending consideration. A return was filed by the respondents contending that the petitioner had withdrawn an amount from the provident fund which was 2 not credited in his account, on account of which, since the said amount was treated to be included in the provident fund account, payment of interest on the said amount was made and ultimately it had reached to such a huge amount of Rs.53,225/-, which was in fact paid in excess to the petitioner. Therefore, the same was required to be recovered.
2. This Court has entertained the writ petition and has granted an interim stay. During course of the hearing, this Court has directed to recalculate the amount, which the petitioner was paid in excess, vide order dated 25.7.2013 and a statement to this effect was filed by the respondents indicating that in all Rs.42,387/- was paid in excess to the petitioner. Only this much amount was required to be recovered from the petitioner. This statement is verified by the petitioner and it is stated that such a statement is correct.
3. Now the only contention raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that after such a long period of retirement it is unjustified to recover such amount from the petitioner. It is contended that the petitioner has retired on 30 th June, 2001 and therefore after 8 years of his retirement the recovery was directed in such a manner. This being unjustified act on the part of the respondents, the recovery was not to be made from the petitioner. It is contended that the fact that excess payment was made was well within the knowledge of the respondents, but they kept silent and now the petitioner, 3 who is suffering from heart problem and other diseases, is made to suffer financial loss.
4. Per contra, it is contended by the learned counsel appearing for the respondents that the petitioner would not be entitled to any relief in view of the fact that the money of the Bank is also the public money and it is not to be wasted in the manner it would be had it not been recovered from the petitioner on account of wrong payment of provident fund. It is thus contended that it would be appropriate for the petitioner to deposit back the amount and since he has enjoyed the stay of recovery on account of passing of an interim order in the present petition, the entire amount is required to be deposited by the petitioner in lump sum.
5. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and after considering the submissions made by them it is clear that the petitioner has no right to say that such a recovery cannot be made from him in view of the law laid down by the Apex Court in the case of Chandi Prasad Uniyal and others vs. State of Uttarakhand and others, (2012) 8 SCC417 However, this Court has considered various aspects and has taken note of the law laid down by the Apex Court in the case of Chandi Prasad Uniyal (supra) in light of the decision rendered by the Apex Court in the case of Syed Abdul Qadir vs. State of Bihar, (2009) 3 SCC475 On one such occasion, this Court has held that recovery of such excess payment, in such circumstances, in lump sum would not be justified. It has been held that a lenient view should be 4 taken by the employer and a proportionate direction for recovery should be issued.
6. Keeping in view the aforesaid, while not entertaining the writ petition, it is directed that petitioner will make an appropriate application before the respondents for fixing a reasonable installment of the amount of recovery and after adjusting the amount already recovered from the petitioner, the remaining amount as calculated under the orders of this Court and as has been verified to be Rs.42,387/- only would be recovered from the petitioner. The amount as indicated in Annexure P/1 would not be recovered from the petitioner. The application made in this respect by the petitioner be decided expeditiously after granting an opportunity of hearing to him.
7. The writ petition stands disposed of accordingly. (K.K. Trivedi) Judge shukla-