Madhya Pradesh High CourtSecretary The State Of Madhya Pradesh vs Someshar Prasad Shukla on 23 September, 2011W.A.No.635/2011

 23.09.2011


       Shri   Sanjay   Dwivedi,   learned   Govt.   Advocate   for   the 
appellant.

       The writ petitioner was a Constable and who has taken 
voluntary retirement. After 1 ½ month after his retirement he 
applied   for   withdrawal   of   his   request   for   voluntary 
retirement.

       Although   at   that   stage   such   request   was   not 
maintainable,   but   the   learned   Single   Judge   found   in   the 
impugned   order   that   the   Inspector   General   of   Police   has 
allowed the request of the writ petitioner, and had permitted 
his   rejoining   on   certain   conditions,   one   of   which   was   re­
deposit of the withdrawal made by the petitioner.  
       It  was  found  that  in paragraph  8  of  their  return,  the 
respondent had agreed that the liability of the re­deposit maybe fixed and the recovery may be made by deduction from 
salary with the writ petitioner undertaking not to claim the 
amount and to repay the amount in instalments.The   petitioner   was   a   mere   Constable   and   obviously 
payment   of   the   large   amount   of   Rs.1,67,057/­   in   one   go 
would have been extremely difficult for him. In fact requiring 
such   large   deposit   in   one   go,   may   have   lead   to   obvious 
undesirable activity by the petitioner after re­joining police 
service.   Accordingly,   the   requisite   directions   have   been 
issued in the impugned order.This appeal has been filed by the State on the alleged 
           ground   that   the   concession   made   in   paragraph   8   of   the 
          return was not authorised.If only oral concession had been made by respondent, 
          perhaps this ground could have been entertained. But where 
          a   concession   is   made   in   the   counter   affidavit   of   the 
          respondents and the case is decided on that basis, and the 
          concession does not appear to be unreasonable, this kind of 
          argument cannot be accepted to entertain the appeal.The writ appeal is accordingly dismissed.(Sushil Harkauli)                      (K.K.Trivedi)
           Acting Chief Justice                            Judge

A.Praj.