Madhya Pradesh High Court
Gajendra Singh Rauthar vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 6 August, 2024
Author: Sanjay Dwivedi
Bench: Sanjay Dwivedi
1 WP-17624-2015
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE SANJAY DWIVEDI
ON THE 6 th OF AUGUST, 2024
WRIT PETITION No. 17624 of 2015
GAJENDRA SINGH RAUTHAR AND OTHERS
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Atul Kumar Rai - Advocate for the petitioners.
Shri Girish Kekre - Government Advocate for the respondents/State.
ORDER
By the instant petition, petitioners are challenging the order dated
07.05.2015 (Annexure P/1) whereby recovery of the amount paid towards
ad-hoc increase has been proposed against them holding that they have been
paid additional allowance for which finally they were not found eligible to
get the same.
Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the said aspect of the
matter has already been considered by a Coordinate Bench in WP No.
16970/2019 (Subhash Chand Burle vs. The State of Madhya Pradesh and
others) decided on 26th of July, 2024 and the order of proposed recovery has
been quashed.
Learned counsel for the petitioner has also pointed out that while
deciding the petition of entitlement of getting ad-hoc increase, the Supreme
Court in Miscellaneous Application No. 2725 of 2013 filed in Civil Appeal
No. 9927 of 2018 - Anita Chaudhari & Ors. vs. State of M.PI. & Ors.
decided by order dated 06.07.2023 has observed that if benefit has already
been granted, the recovery part can be assailed by the petitioners before the
High Court.
In view of the above, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that
the impugned order deserves to be quashed.
2 WP-17624-2015
The Coordinate Bench in Subhash Chand Burle (supra) while deciding
the issue, observed as under:-
"A Full Bench of this Court in the case of Jagdish Prasad Dubey
(supra) while dealing with the issue as to recovery after
retirement, has held as follows:
"35.(a) Question No. 1 is answered by holding that
recovery can be effected from the pensionary benefits
or from the salary based on the undertaking or the
indemnity bond given by the employee before the grant
of benefit of pay refixation. The question of hardship of
Government servant has to be taken note of in
pursuance to the judgment passed by the Larger Bench
of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Syed
Abdul Qadir (supra). The time period as fixed in the
case of Rafiq Masih (supra) reported in (2015) 4 SCC
334 requires to be followed. Conversely an undertaking
given at the stage of payment of retiral dues with
reference to the refixation of pay or increments done
decades ago cannot be enforced.
(b) Question No. 2 is answered by holding that recovery
can be made towards the excess payment made in terms
of Rule 65 and 66 of the Rules of 1976 provided that
the entire procedure as contemplated in Chapter VIII of
the Rules of 1976 are followed by the employer.
However, no recovery can be made in pursuance to
Rule 65 of the Rules of 1976 towards revision of pay
which has been extended to a Government servant
much earlier. In such cases, recovery can be made in
terms of the answer to Question No.1.
(c) Question No. 3 is answered by holding that the
undertaking given by the employee at the time of grant
of financial benefits on account of refixation of pay is a
forced undertaking and is therefore not enforceable in
3 WP-17624-2015
the light of the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court
in the case of Central Inland Water Transport
Corporation Limited (supra) unless the undertaking is
given voluntarily."
In view whereof, and on hearing the contentions, this Court deems
it appropriate to dispose off the writ petition by directing the
petitioner to file a representation in this regard within a period of
15 days from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order to
the respondent No. 2 who, in tern, is directed to decide the same
within a period of 45 days in the light of Full Bench decision of
this Court in the case of Jagdish Prasad Dubey (supra)."
The Supreme Court in Anita Choudhari (supra) also observed as
under:-
"3. The aforesaid applications have been opposed by learned
counsel for the respondent-State, who draws our attention to
paragraph '13' of the judgment dated 25 th September, 2018, on
which both the parties are relying. The said paragraph reads as
below:
"13. We are in agreement with the High Court that the
method of recruitment, qualifications for appointment, duties
and responsibilities of the Ministerial and Executive Staff
being different, Ministerial employees are not entitled to
claim parity of pay-scale with the Executive Force. We
affirm the judgment of the High Court regarding the
recoveries sought to be made between 01.01.2000 to
17.1.2001."
4. Learned counsel for the applicants/appellants states that their
grievance is not in respect of the recoveries directed to be made
between 01.01.2000 to 17.11.2001, but those sought to be made
prior to the year 2000 and after the year 2001.
5. We are of the opinion that such applications for clarification of
4 WP-17624-2015
the judgment dated 25th September, 2018, are not maintainable in
a disposed of matter. If the applicants/appellants are aggrieved by
the recoveries sought to be made by the respondent-State for
periods besides the period between 01.01.2000 to 17.11.2001, it is
for them to seek appropriate legal recourse.
6. Miscellaneous applications are disposed of with liberty granted
to the applicants/appellants to seek appropriate legal recourse for
the relief as prayed for in the present applications."
Thus, in view of the order passed by the Coordinate Bench and taking
note of the order passed by the Supreme Court in the cases referred above,
this petition is also allowed. The order dated 07.05.2015 (Annexure P/1) is
hereby quashed. It is directed that no recovery from the petitioners shall be
initiated and amount already recovered shall be refunded to them with
interest @ 6% per annum from the date of recovery till the date of payment.
With the aforesaid, this petition is allowed and disposed of.
(SANJAY DWIVEDI)
JUDGE
RAGHVENDRA
