Madhya Pradesh High Court
Smt. Prabha Maravi vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 14 June, 2023
Author: Maninder S. Bhatti
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE MANINDER S. BHATTI
ON THE 14 th OF JUNE, 2023
WRIT PETITION No. 20047 of 2021
BETWEEN:-
SMT. PRABHA MARAVI W/O LATE SHRI MAHESH
PRASAD MARAVI, AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS,
OCCUPATION: HOUSE WIFE R/O E-38/4 KACHNAR CITY
VIJAY NAGAR JABALPUR (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....PETITIONER
(BY SHRI ATUL KUMAR RAI - ADVOCATE)
AND
1. THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH THRO.
SECRETARY HOME POLICE DEPARTMENT
VALLABH BHAWAN BHOPAL (MADHYA PRADESH)
2. STATE OF MP. THR. SECRETARY FINANCE
D EPARTM EN T VALLABH BHAWAN BHOPAL
(MADHYA PRADESH)
3. DIRECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE POLICE
H E A D Q U A R T E R S JAHANGIRABAD BHOPAL
(MADHYA PRADESH)
4. ACCOUNTANT GENERAL ACCOUNT TREASEUTY
AND PENSION LAK H A B HAWAN JHASI ROAD
GWALIOR MP (MADHYA PRADESH)
5. SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE (RAIL)
CHHATAR PUR DISTRICT CHHATARPUR M.P.
(MADHYA PRADESH)
6. DISTRICT PENSION OFFICER ACCOUNT
TREASEUTY AND PENSION COLLECTRED
PROMISES CHHATARPUR (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....RESPONDENTS
(BY SHRI ARNAV TIWARI - PANEL LAWYER FOR THE
RESPONDENT/STATE)
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: KRISHNA SINGH
Signing time: 6/16/2023
11:48:15 AM
2
This petition coming on for admission, this day, the court passed the
following:
ORDER
The petitioner has filed this petition while praying for the following relief:-
(i) Petitioner is praying for quashing of the recovery excess
amount paid to the petitioner, Annexure P/1, dated 27..8.2021. And
pension up to date is paid.
(ii) This Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to direct the
respondents/authority to refund the recovery amount of Rs.10,79,108/=00,
with interest to the petitioner, recovered by the respondent.
(iii) That, any other relief which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit
and proper may kindly be granted to the petitioner.
(iv) Cost of the petition is also awarded.
2. Facts as elaborated in the petition reflect that the petitioner is widow of
late Mahesh Prasad Maravi who was working as Sub Divisional Police Officer
in the Office of Superintendent of Police, Chhattarpur, M.P. The husband of
the petitioner, expired on 25.10.2019. The husband of the petitioner had
completed 36 years of service before his death. After death of the husband of
the petitioner, the petitioner herein was served with impugned order dated
27.08.2021, contained in Annexure P-1 by which the petitioner was intimated
that an amount of Rs.10,79,108/- is to be recovered from the petitioner
including the interest as, the pay fixation was incorrectly carried out in the past.
Assailing the order dated 27.08.2021, this petition has been filed.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the order impugned is
unsustainable in as much as, the benefit of pay scale was not extended to the
deceased employee on account of any fraud or misrepresentation and therefore,
the recovery, goes contrary to the law laid down by the Apex Court in the case
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: KRISHNA SINGH
Signing time: 6/16/2023
11:48:15 AM
of State of Punjab and others Vs. Rafiq Masih (White Washer) and Others
reported in (2015) 4 SCC 334. It is also contended by the learned counsel that
the deceased employee did not execute any undertaking while availing the
benefit of pay scale in the relevant years which are mentioned in Annexure P-1.
The petitioner was compelled by the respondent to give undertaking and
furnish Indemnity bond as dues of her husband were not being released.
4. Therefore, in the light of the order passed in the case of Rafiq Masih
and also a co-ordinate bench of this Court in Writ Petition No.10859/2020
(Rameshwar Tawar Vs. State of M.P. and Others) and also
W.P.No.18802/2016 (Dhaal Singh Bisen Vs. Madhya Pradesh State Co-
operative Election Board), the order impugned deserves to be quashed.
5. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent submit that in the
present case, the assessment was carried out on 27.12.2019 which has been
brought on record vide Annexure R-1 to the return. The learned counsel further
contend that the present petitioner is wife of the deceased employee, who
furnished an undertaking on 16.01.2020 which is contained in Annexure R-2 and
also an Indemnity Bond on 08.11.2019 which is contained in Annexure R-3.
6. Therefore, submit that in view of the decision of the apex Court in the
case of Punjab and Haryana and Others Vs. Jagdev Singh reported in (2016) 14
SCC 267, the petitioner is not entitled for any relief in as much as there exist not
only an undertaking but also an indemnity bond and accordingly, submit that the
petition is liable to be dismissed.
7. Heard the rival submissions and perused the record.
8. In the present case, undisputed facts are to the effect that the husband
of the petitioner was working as Sub Divisional Police Officer, who died, while
in service on 25.10.2019. After death of the petitioner's husband, the petitioner
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: KRISHNA SINGH
Signing time: 6/16/2023
11:48:15 AM
was confronted with an order dated 27.12.2021, by which it has been intimated
that there exist a recovery of Rs.10,79,108/- on account of incorrect pay
fixation which was availed of by the husband of the petitioner. The respondents
have not brought on record any undertaking or any indemnity bond which was
executed by the deceased employee during the service tenure. On the contrary,
the indemnity bond and the undertaking were obtained from the petitioner after
the death of her husband.
9. This Court, in the case of S.S. Thakur (supra) held that the
undertaking has to be executed at the time of revision of pay scale which was
availed by the concerned employees. This Court, held in paragraphs 18, 19 and
20 as under:-
18. Thus, the crucial aspect herein is as to whether the employer
had obtained any written undertaking from the petitioner at the time of revising the pay-
scale (w.e.f. 01.01.2006) which led to excess payment, and the nature of undertaking
submitted by petitioner.
19. In the instant case, the petitioner attained the age of superannuation on
31.03.2016; whereas, the excess payment was made vide order dated 28.01.2016 while
there is nothing on record to show that on or before 28.01.2016, the employer had taken
any written undertaking from the petitioner.
20. Not having done so, the respondents herein are estopped from effecting the
impugned recovery. As explained above, neither the plea of petitioner having furnished
"ÂœIndemnity Bond"Â at the time of retirement, nor the provision of Rule 65 of M.P.
Civil Service (Pension) Rules 1976, can be of any assistance to the State and its
functionaries.
10. This Court again also in Writ Petition No.62/2017 (Manak Lal Sahu
Vs. The State of M.P.) held in paragraph 7 and 8 as under:-
I n the present case, the recovery has been proposed after the date of
superannuation while issuing Pension Cover Sheet (Annexure-P/1). The recovery as
per return of the respondents is consequence of incorrect pay-fixation of the petitioner
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: KRISHNA SINGH
Signing time: 6/16/2023
11:48:15 AM
in the scale of pay of Rs. 5200-20200/- w.e.f. 01-01-2006. Along with the return, there
is one indemnity bond, which is contained in Annexure-R/1, which is said to be executed
on 09-06-2016. Therefore, undisputedly, the said indemnity bond was executed by the
petitioner just before 21 days of his superannuation,as he was superannuated on 30-06-
2016. Annexure-R/2 which is also brought on record, contains an undertaking which is
also executed by the employee while seeking extension of retiral dues. There is no
document on record to show that at the time of extension of benefit of pay-fixation
w.e.f. 01-01-1996 any undertaking or indemnity bond was executed by the petitioner.
In Jagdev Singh (supra) the Hon'ble Supreme Court ruled thus :
"11. The principle enunciated in Proposition (ii) above cannot
apply to a situation such as in the present case. In the present case, the
officer to whom the payment was made in the first instance was clearly
placed on notice that any payment found to have been made in excess
would be required to be refunded. The officer furnished an undertaking
while opting for the revised pay scale. He is bound by the undertaking.
12. Fo r these reasons, the judgment of the High Court which set
aside the action for recovery is unsustainable. However, we are of the view
that the recovery should be made in reasonable instalments. We direct that
the recovery be made in equated monthly instalments spread over a period
of two years."
[Emphasis supplied]
11. In view of the aforesaid, as in the present case, there is no
undertaking or indemnity bond by the deceased employee at the time of availing
the benefit of fixation of pay scale, the reliance as is being sought to be placed
on the decision of Jagdev Singh (supra) is misconceived and accordingly, in the
light of the law laid down in the case of Rafiq Masih (supra), the respondents
were not justified in passing the impugned order.
12. It is not the case of the respondent that the benefit of pay scale was
availed as a result of fraud or misrepresentation by the deceased employee and
therefore, in the absence of any such eventuality, the respondents were
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: KRISHNA SINGH
Signing time: 6/16/2023
11:48:15 AM
unjustified in passing the impugned order dated 27.08.2021 contained in
Annexure P-1.
13. Resultantly, the impugned order dated 27.08.2021,contained in
Annexure P-1, stands quashed.
14. The petition is allowed. The respondents are directed to release the
amount of Rs.10,79,108/- to the petitioner within a period of 60 days from
today, failing which the amount shall incur interest @ 6% till the actual payment.
15. Certified copy as per rules.
(MANINDER S. BHATTI)
JUDGE
veni
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: KRISHNA SINGH
Signing time: 6/16/2023
11:48:15 AM
