Madhya Pradesh High Court
Arjun Singh Thakur vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 26 July, 2024
Author: Pranay Verma
Bench: Pranay Verma
1 WP-678-2018
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT INDORE
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE PRANAY VERMA
ON THE 26 th OF JULY, 2024
WRIT PETITION No. 678 of 2018
ARJUN SINGH THAKUR
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Madhusudan Dwivedi, learned counsel for the petitioner.
Shri Tarun Kushwah, Government Advocate for the State.
ORDER
By this petition preferred under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the
petitioner has challenged the order dated 01.05.2017 (Annexure P/7) passed by the
respondents whereby recovery in the total sum of Rs.1,86,797/- (which includes
principal as well as interest amount) has been directed to be made from him.
2. The petitioner has retired from the post of Deputy Forest Ranger which is
a Class III employee. From the impugned order, it is apparent that recovery has
been directed against the petitioner on account of withdrawal of Kramonnati.
3. The Full Bench of this Court at Principal Seat, Jabalpur in identical
matters has quashed such recovery orders by judgment dated 06.03.2024 passed in
Writ Appeal No.815 of 2017( State of Madhya Pradesh and Another vs. Jagdish
Prasad Dubey and Another) and connected writ petitions reported in 2024 SCC
online MP 1567. It has been held in paragraph No.35 as under:
"Answers to the questions referred
35.(a) Question No.1 is answered by holding that recovery can be effected from the
2 WP-678-2018
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 and Another vs. Brojo Nath Ganguly and Another, reported in (1986) 3 SCC
136 unless the undertaking is given voluntarily."
4. In view of the above the order dated 01.05.2017 (Annexure P/7) passed
by the respondents is hereby quashed. The amount, if any, recovered from the
petitioner be refunded to him along with interest @ 6% per annum from the date of
recovery till date of payment. Let the same be done within a period of three
months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order. The pay fixation of
the petitioner is however maintained.
5. The petition is accordingly allowed and disposed off.
(PRANAY VERMA)
JUDGE
Shilpa
