Madhya Pradesh High Court
Awadha Pratap Singh vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 7 August, 2024
Author: Vishal Mishra
Bench: Vishal Mishra
1 WP-21934-2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VISHAL MISHRA
ON THE 7 th OF AUGUST, 2024
WRIT PETITION No. 21934 of 2024
AWADHA PRATAP SINGH
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri R.P. Gupta - Advocate for petitioner.
Shri Darshan Soni - Government Advocate for respondents/State.
ORDER
This petition has been filed seeking the following reliefs:-
"(i) Issue a writ in the nature of certiorari to quash the impugned order
dated 26.07.2024 passed by respondent no.7 in No.263 (Annexure P/4)
in the ends of justice.
(ii) This Hon'ble Court also issue a writ in the nature of certiorari to
quash the impugned order dated 18.07.2024 passed by respondent no.3
EPDC-01/Debit balance (Annexure P/3) in the ends of justice.
(iii) Any other relief which this Hon'ble Court deemed fit and proper
also be awarded in favour of petitioner."
2. Learned State counsel has submitted that the question involved herein is
covered by the decision of Full Bench of this Court passed in a reference
Writ Appeal No.815 of 2017 (State of M.P. and others vs Jagdish Prasad
Dubey) dated 06.03.2024 and if a representation is submitted by the
petitioner to the concerning authorities, they will consider the grievance of
the petitioner and settle the dispute in the light of a Full Bench decision of
this Court Jagdish Prasad Dubey (supra).
2 WP-21934-2024
4. 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 a
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 Rules 65 and 66 of the
Rules of 1976 provided that the entire procedures 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 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."
5. 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 concerned authority who, in turn,
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).
3 WP-21934-2024
6. It is pointed out that till date no recovery has been made. Hence, the
effect and operation of the impugned dated 26.07.2024 (Annexure P/4) shall
remain stayed till decision on the representation.
7. With these observations, the petition is disposed off finally. No order as
to costs.
(VISHAL MISHRA)
JUDGE
sj
