Rajbhan Shukla vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh
2023 Latest Caselaw 12652 MP

Citation : 2023 Latest Caselaw 12652 MP
Judgement Date : 7 August, 2023

Madhya Pradesh High Court

Rajbhan Shukla vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 7 August, 2023

Author: Gurpal Singh Ahluwalia

                                    1                   W.P.No.13641/2016



     IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
                AT J A B A L P U R
                       BEFORE
    HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE GURPAL SINGH AHLUWALIA
              ON THE 7th OF AUGUST, 2023
             WRIT PETITION No. 13641 of 2016
BETWEEN:-
RAJBHAN SHUKLA S/O SHRI AWADHESH PRASAD SHUKLA,
AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS, OCCUPATION: RETID. RURAL
AGRICULTURE EXTENSION OFFICER FROM SUB DIVN.
AGRICULTURAL OFFICER, KISHAN VILL PANCHA GHANA
DASHRAMAN DHEEMERKHEDA KATNI (MADHYA PRADESH)
                                                   .....PETITIONER

(BY SHRI K. L. PANDEY - ADVOCATE)

AND

1.    THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH THROUGH THE
      SECRETARY AGRICULTURE DEPT. MANTRALAYA
      VALLABH BHAWAN BHOPAL (MADHYA PRADESH)
2.    JOINT DIRECTOR AGRICULTURE DEPTT. IN FRONT OF
      HIGH COURT JABALPUR (MADHYA PRADESH)
3.    DY. DIRECTOR AGRICULTURE DEPTT. DISTT. KATNI
      (MADHYA PRADESH)
4.    SUB DIVISIONAL OFFICER AGRICULTURE DEPTT.
      DISTT. KATNI (MADHYA PRADESH)
5.    JOINT DIRECTOR DIRECTORATE OF TREASURY AND
      ACCOUNTS DISTT. JABALPUR (MADHYA PRADESH)
6.    DISTRICT PENSION OFFICER DIRECTORATE               OF
      PENSION DISTT. KATNI (MADHYA PRADESH)
                                                .....RESPONDENTS

 (BY SHRI JUBIN PRASAD - PANEL LAWYER)

      This petition coming on for admission this day, the court passed the
following:
                                ORDER

This writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been

filed against the order dated 31.03.2016 passed by the District Pension Office,

Katni, District Katni in File No. DPO/16/0068 by which a recovery of

Rs.1,14,053/- (Rs. One Lakh Fourteen Thousand and Fifty Three) has been

effected on the ground of erroneous refixation of salary. It is submitted that

since the refixation was done without any misrepresentation on the part of the

petitioner therefore, the recovery is bad in law in light of the judgment passed

by the Supreme Court in the case of State of Punjab & Others vs. Rafiq

Masih (White Washer) reported in (2015) 4 SCC 334.

2. Per contra, it is submitted by the learned counsel for the State that the

refixation was done in the year 2006 only after an undertaking was given by the

petitioner. Thus, in view of the undertaking, the judgment passed by the

Supreme Court in the case of High Court of Punjab & Haryana & Ors. vs.

Jagdev Singh (Civil Appeal No.3500 of 2006) would apply and thus, it is

submitted that the excess amount paid to the petitioner on account of erroneous

refixation can be recovered.

3. Heard learned counsel for the parties.

4. The respondents have filed a copy of computation according to which

mistake occurred for the first time in the assessment of refixation of salary done

in the month of 2006 and onwards. The respondents have also relied upon the

copy of the undertaking given by the petitioner which reads as under :-

izi= & rhu

opu i= ( Undertaking )

eq>s ;g Kkr gS fd fnukad 01@01@2006 ls Lohd`r e/;izns'k osru iqujh{k.k fu;e] 2009 ds izko/kkuksa ds vUrxZr esjk tks osru fu;ru vHkh iqujhf{kr osru <kaps esa fd;k x;k gS og vufUre ( Provisional ) gSA eSa opu nsrk@nsrh gwW fd eSa jkT; "kklu dks og laiw.kZ jkf'k tks fd osru fu;ru esa vfu;ferrk ds dkj.k rFkk vU; dksbZ Hkh /kujkf'k tks fd bl izdkj osru fu;ru ds dkj.k eq>s vf/kd Hkqxrku dh xbZ gks] "kklu ds funsZ'kksa ds vuq:i fu/kkZfjr jkf'k okil d:axk@d:axh rFkk bl izdkj dh jkf'k esjs ns; LoRoksa ls ftuesa isa'ku] xzsP;wVh ,oa vodk'k uxnhdj.k dh jkf'k Hkh lfEefyr gS] dkVh tk ldsxhA eSa ;g Hkh opu nsrk@nsrh gwa fd ;fn mDrkuqlkj esjs }kjk ns; jkf'k dks eSa ykSVkus esa vleFkZ jgrk@jgrh gwa rks bl ns; jkf'k dh okilh ds fy;s eSa vius mRrjkf/kdkfj;ksa] fu'ikndksa] izfrfuf/k;ksa vkSj leuqnsf'kfr;ksa dks vkc) djrk@djrh gwaA eSa ;g Hkh lgefr nsrk@nsrh gwa fd esjs }kjk ns;

jkf'k eq>ls jktLo dh cdk;k ds :i esa olwy dj yh tkosA

lgh@& lk{kh %& lgh@& gLrk{kj 'kkldh; deZpkjh gLrk{kj %& lgh@& inuke irk %& LFkku fnukad 20@05@2009 fnukad 20@05@2009

Since, the petitioner has given an undertaking for deposit of an excess

amount, if erroneously paid, then this Court is of the considered opinion that the

case at hand is duly covered by the judgment passed by the Supreme Court in

the case of Jagdev Singh (supra). Therefore, the respondents can recover the

excess payment made to the petitioner on account of erroneous refixation of the

salary.

5. However, from the assessment which has been filed by the respondents

along with their return, it is clear that even interest was also charged on the

excess amount paid to the petitioner. It is not the case of the respondents that a

misrepresentation was made by the petitioner. If the respondents have