Madhya Pradesh High Court
Brij Mohan Prasad Pandey vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 21 December, 2021
Author: Vishal Dhagat
1 WP-22894-2018
The High Court Of Madhya Pradesh
WP No. 22894 of 2018
(BRIJ MOHAN PRASAD PANDEY Vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS)
Jabalpur, Dated : 21-12-2021
Mr. K.K.Agnihotri, learned counsel for petitioner.
Mr. Shivam Hazari, learned Panel Lawyer for respondent-State.
Petitioner has filed this writ petition challenging the recovery mentioned
in PPO dated 22.06.2017 contained in Annexure-P/3. Counsel appearing for
petitioner submitted that respondents had recovered an amount of
Rs.3.08,826/- from petitioner. It is submitted that petitioner is Class-III
employee and was working as Assistant Sub-Inspector in Police, his case is
covered by judgment rendered by Apex Court in case of (2015) 4 SCC 334-
State of Punjab Vs. Rafiq Masih and his case is covered by paragraph-4
of the said judgment and in view of same, counsel appearing for petitioner
prays for quashing of part of PPO, whereby recovery is directed against the
petitioner.
Panel Lawyer appearing for respondent-State submitted that excess
payment has been made to petitioner. Respondents are entitled to make
recovery of excess payment given to petitioner from amount of gratuity. The
amount is sought to be recovered after one year of retirement of the
petitioner. In these circumstances, as excess amount has been paid to
petitioner, therefore, same has rightly been recovered from petitioner.
Heard counsel for petitioner as well as counsel for respondents.
In case of white washer's case (supra) Apex Court laid down some of
circumstances where recovery may not be made from Government
employee. Apex Court in its judgment held as under:-
" (4) It is not possible to postulate all situations of hardship, which
would govern employees on the issue of recovery, where payments have
mistakenly been made by the employer, in excess of their entitlement. Be
that as it may, on the decisions referred to herein above, we may, as a
ready reference, summarize the following few situations, wherein
recoveries by the employers, would be impermissible in law:
(i) Recovery from employees belonging to Class-III and Class-IV
Signature
SAN Not service (or Group 'C' and Group 'D' service).
Verified
Digitally signed by
NEETI TIWARI
Date: 2021.12.21
16:59:51 IST
2 WP-22894-2018
(ii) Recovery from retired employees, or employees who are due to
retire within one year, of the order of recovery.
(iii) Recovery from employees, when the excess payment has been
made for a period in excess of five years, before the order of recovery
is issued.
(iv) Recovery in cases where an employee has wrongfully been required
to discharge duties of a higher post, and has been paid accordingly,
even though he should have rightfully been required to work against an
inferior post.
(v) In any other case, where the Court arrives at the conclusion, that
recovery if made from the employee, would be iniquitous or harsh or
arbitrary to such an extent, as would far outweigh the equitable balance
of the employer's right to recover"
The case of petitioner falls in clauses (i), (ii) and (v).
Considering the aforesaid circumstances, Writ Petition is allowed. Part
payment of recovery order amounting to sum of Rs.3,08,826/- by PPO dated
22.06.2017 contained in Annexure P/3 is quashed.
If recovery has already been made from petitioner in pursuance to PPO
dated 22.06.2017, the same shall be returned to him.
Writ Petition is disposed off.
Certified copy as per rules.
(VISHAL DHAGAT)
JUDGE
nd
Signature
SAN Not
Verified
Digitally signed by
NEETI TIWARI
Date: 2021.12.21
16:59:51 IST
