Madhya Pradesh High Court
Ramniwas Singh Bhadoria vs State Of M.P. Through Home Department on 26 February, 2024
Author: Sushrut Arvind Dharmadhikari
Bench: Sushrut Arvind Dharmadhikari
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT INDORE
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE SUSHRUT ARVIND DHARMADHIKARI
ON THE 26 th OF FEBRUARY, 2024
WRIT PETITION No. 1270 of 2021
BETWEEN:-
RAMNIWAS SINGH BHADORIA S/O SHRI SARDAR
SINGH BHADORIA, AGED 51 YEARS, OCCUPATION:
SERVICE, R/O 155 (80 LIG) MAHASHAKTI NAGAR
DEWAS ROAD (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....PETITIONER
(MS. ANJALI JAMKHEDKAR, COUNSEL FOR THE PETITIONER).
AND
1. STATE OF M.P., THROUGH PRINCIPAL
SECR ETARY, HOME DEPARTMENT VALLABH
BHAWAN, BHOPAL (MADHYA PRADESH)
2. DIRECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE, MADHYA
PRADESH, BHOPAL (MADHYA PRADESH)
3. SENIOR SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE (RADIO)
BHADBHADA ROAD, BHOPAL (MADHYA
PRADESH)
4. JOINT DIRECTOR, DIRECTORATE OF TREASURY
AND ACCOUNTS, UJJAIN DIVISION UJJAIN
(MADHYA PRADESH)
5. SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE (RADIO) UJJAIN
ZONE, DIST UJJAIN (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....RESPONDENTS
(SHRI BHUWAN GAUTAM, GOVERNMENT ADVOCATE FOR THE STATE).
This petition coming on for admission this day, th e court passed the
following:
ORDER
Heard finally with the consent of both the parties.
2. In this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the
petitioner has approached this Court being aggrieved by the order dated
02.01.2021 (Annexure P/1) passed by respondent No. 5 whereby an amount of
Rs. 1,74,247/- (Rs. 1,09,345/- principal amount and Rs. 64,902/- interest) has
been ordered to be recovered from the petitioner in the form of monthly
installments of Rs. 10,000/- towards excess payment of salary from 01.04.1999
to 30.06.2020 due to wrong fixation of pay scale for which he was not entitled.
3 . Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is a
Class-III employee and has never misrepresented his case for getting the benefit
of pay scale or increment. The earlier pay fixation was done in accordance with
law. He further contended that the petitioner was not at fault at any point of time
and no undertaking was given by him to that effect. Learned counsel for the
petitioner challenges the aforesaid recovery on the strength of judgment of the
Supreme Court in the case of State of Punjab and others Vs. Rafiq Masih
(White Washer) etc (2015 (1) MPHT 130 (SC), wherein it has been held as
under:
"12. It is not possible to postulate all situations of
hardships where payments have mistakenly been made
by an employer, in the following situations, a recovery
by the employer would be impermissible in law:
( i ) Recovery from employees belonging to Class-III
and Class-IV service (or Group 'C' and Group 'D'
service).
(ii) Recovery from retired employees, or employees who
are due to retire within one year of the order of
recovery.
( i i i ) R ecovery from employees, when the excess
payment has been made for a period in excess of five
years, before the order of recovery is issued.
( i v ) Recovery in cases where an employee has
wrongfully been required to discharge duties of a
higher post, and has been paid accordingly, even
though he should have rightfully been required to
work against an inferior post.
(v) In any other case, where the Court arrives at the
conclusion, that recovery if made from the employee,
would be iniquitous or harsh or arbitrary to such an
extent, as would far outweigh the equitable balance of
the employer's right to recover."
4. Learned counsel has relied upon clauses (i) and (iii) above to
bolster his submissions. That apart, the entire recovery without any notice and
opportunity of hearing is patently illegal for want of observance of principles of
natural justice. He placed reliance on the judgment of Apex Court in the case of
M.P. Medical Officers Association vs. State of M.P. and others passed in
Civil Appeal No.5527/2022 vide judgment dated 26/08/2022 wherein the
Apex Court has quashed the recovery of excess amount and has directed to
refund the entire amount which was recovered from the employees who were in
service. Therefore, the impugned recovery, deserves to be quashed.
5. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent/State has opposed the
prayer and submitted that the recovery has been ordered due to wrong fixation
of the pay scale for the amount for which petitioner is not entitled. Hence, there
is no illegality in the impugned order and the petition deserves to be dismissed.
6. Heard learned counsel for the parties.
7. As per Rafiq Masih (supra) the recovery cannot be effected from a
Class-III or Class-IV employee. Secondly, recovery cannot be effected for the
excess of payment which has been made for the period in excess of five year.
In the present case, the recovery is being effected from the year 1999 till 2020,
which is not permissible.
8. In view of the principles laid down in case of Rafiq Masih (supra)
and M.P. Medical Officers Association (supra) , the impugned order dated
02.01.2021 is hereby quashed. The amount, if already recovered, shall be
refunded to the petitioner within three months from the date of receipt of
certified copy this order.
9. With the aforesaid, this petition stands allowed and disposed of.
No order as to cost.
(S. A. DHARMADHIKARI)
JUDGE
vidya
