Radheshyam Maurya vs Home Department (Police)
2023 Latest Caselaw 13659 MP

                                                       - : 1 :-

                               IN THE         HIGH COURT OF MADHYA
                                                  PRADESH
                                                 AT I N D O R E
                                                      BEFORE
                                    HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VIVEK RUSIA

                                            ON THE 22nd OF AUGUST, 2023

                                           WRIT PETITION No. 10133 of 2018

                          BETWEEN:-
                          RADHESHYAM MAURYA S/O SHRI RAMCHANDRA
                          MAURYA, AGED ABOUT 67 YEARS, OCCUPATION:
                          PENSIONER RETIRED CONSTABLE NO. 515,
                          SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE (RAIL), INDORE
                          KESHAV NAGAR (AMBAR COLONY) NEAR
                          NEELGANGA POLICE STATION, UJJAIN (MADHYA
                          PRADESH)
                                                                           .....PETITIONER
                          (BY SHRI L.C. PATNE, ADVOCATE)

                          AND
                             HOME DEPARTMENT (POLICE) PRINCIPAL
                          1. SECRETARY VALLABH BHAWAN, BHOPAL
                             (MADHYA PRADESH)
                             SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE (RAIL) THE
                          2. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH INDORE
                             (MADHYA PRADESH)
                             DIVISIONAL/DISTRICT PENSION OFFICER THE
                             STATE      OF     MADHYA       PRADESH
                          3.
                             COLLECTORATE CAMPUS MOTE TABELA
                             INDORE (MADHYA PRADESH)
                                                                        .....RESPONDENTS
                          (BY SHRI PRADYUM KIBE, GOVT.ADVOCATE )
                                This petition coming on for order this day, the court passed

                          the following:

                                                       ORDER

1- The petitioner has filed this present petition challenging

Signature Not Verified Signed by: REENA SUDHIR DAS Signing time: 24-Aug-23 5:14:49 PM

- : 2 :-

the order dated 19.08.2016; whereby, the Additional Superintendent of Police (Rail) has informed the DIG, (Rail) about the recovery of Rs.1,76,979/- from the gratuity of the petitioner and in pursuance to the aforesaid letter vide PPO/GPO dated 28.03.2012 (Annexure P-2), the recovery amount has been recovered from the gratuity amount of the petitioner. Hence, the petitioner approached this Court seeking a refund of the recovered amount of Rs.1,76,979/-.

2- The petitioner retired from service as constable w.e.f 31.08.2011 after attaining the age of 60 years. According to him in his entire service, he did not give any undertaking at the time of pay fixation. There was no such recovery against him by way of any disciplinary proceedings, therefore, such a recovery is unjustified and illegal and the same is liable to be quashed.

3- The respondents have filed their reply by submitting that because of the wrong fixation of pay, the excess amount was paid to the petitioner by way of monthly salary and such mistake continued till his retirement, therefore, vide (Annexure R-1), the calculation was done and according to which the amount of Rs.1,76,979/- was found to be recoverable from the petitioner. It is further submitted that after retirement the petitioner signed the indemnity bond on 8.9.2011, therefore, the respondents are entitled to recover the amount in view of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of High Court of Punjab and Haryana Vs.Jagdev Singh

Signature Not Verified Signed by: REENA SUDHIR DAS Signing time: 24-Aug-23 5:14:49 PM

- : 3 :-

reported as (2016) 14 SCC 267.

4- Shri Patne, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the indemnity bond has been obtained after retirement, therefore, it has no value. No such undertaking or bond was obtained by the petitioner at the time of pay fixation. Even otherwise, no such government circular/order is mentioned in the indemnity bond under which the petitioner was compelled to sign the indemnity bond. However, in the pension Rules or other Rules applicable to the petitioner, there is no such provision giving an indemnity bond after retirement in order to get the pensionary benefit.

5- A similar issue came up for consideration before this Court in the case Indrajeet Mishra Vs, State of M.P. (W.P.No.20944/2017 order dated 28.11.2022), Jor Singh Bhadoriya Vs. State of M.P. (W.P.No.8811/2016 order dated 30.8.2017) and in division Bench of this Court at Principal Sear Jabalpur in the case of State of M.P. Vs. Kumari Sahara Saini (Passed in W.A.NO.106/2019 dated 12.02.2020) and W.A.N0.815/2017 order dated 11.04.2018, in which similar controversy has been put to rest by holding that when no undertaking was taken at the time of pay fixation then the indemnity bond taken after retirement cannot be a basis for recovery in the light of Jagdev (Supra).The case is squarely covered by the judgment passed by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of the State of Punjab and Ors. Vs. Rafiq Masih (2015) 4 SCC 334.

Signature Not Verified Signed by: REENA SUDHIR DAS Signing time: 24-Aug-23 5:14:49 PM

- : 4 :-

The petition stands allowed.

6- The order dated 19.08.2016 passed by the respondent no.2 stands quashed. The amount be refunded within 90 days to the petitioner. If respondents fail to return in 90 days they shall be liable to pay interest on it @ 6% from the date of this order till the date of payment.

(VIVEK RUSIA) JUDGE

das

Signature Not Verified Signed by: REENA SUDHIR DAS Signing time: 24-Aug-23 5:14:49 PM