Madhya Pradesh High Court

Ramcharan Choudhary vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 1 May, 2024

Author: Vishal Dhagat

Bench: Vishal Dhagat

                                                             1
                            IN    THE       HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
                                                 AT JABALPUR
                                                      BEFORE
                                        HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VISHAL DHAGAT
                                                   ON THE 1 st OF MAY, 2024
                                               WRIT PETITION No. 457 of 2024

                           BETWEEN:-
                           RAMCHARAN CHOUDHARY, S/O LATE SHRI M.L.
                           CHOUDHARY, AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS, OCCUPATION:
                           RETIRED EMPLOYEE, R/O NEAR SHAKTI MANDIR,
                           KOTHI    BAZAAR,    NARMADPAURAM DISTRICT,
                           NARMADAPURAM (MADHYA PRADESH)

                                                                                          .....PETITIONER
                           (BY SHRI ABHAY TIWARI - ADVOCATE)

                           AND
                           1.    THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH THROUGH
                                 PRINCIPAL SECRETARY DEPARTMENT OF
                                 PUBLIC    HEALTH   AND   ENGINEERING
                                 MANTRALAYA, VALLABH BHAWAN, BHOPAL
                                 (MADHYA PRADESH)

                           2.    EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC
                                 HEALTH      AND       ENGINEERING OFFICE,
                                 NARMADAPURAM, DISTRICT NARMADAPURAM
                                 (MADHYA PRADESH)

                           3.    DISTRICT PENSION OFFICER, NARMADAPURAM
                                 (MADHYA PRADESH)

                           4.    THE COLLECTOR, DISTRICT NARMADAPURAM
                                 (MADHYA PRADESH)

                                                                                        .....RESPONDENTS
                           (BY SHRI L.A.S. BAGHEL - DEPUTY GOVT. ADVOCATE)

                                 This petition coming on for admission this day, th e court passed the
                           following:
                                                              ORDER

Petitioner has filed this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of

India challenging order dated 15.03.2023 contained in Annexure-P/4. By impugned order, total amount Rs.1,90,986/- has been recovered from petitioner.

2. Learned counsel for petitioner submitted that petitioner is a Helper and a Class-IV employee. Excess salary has been paid to petitioner during pay fixation from year 2016 to 2022. Petitioner retired from service on 28.02.2023. It is submitted that case of petitioner is covered by Clause-1 and 4 of the judgment passed in case of State of Punjab and Ors. Vs. Rafiq Masih (White Washer), reported in (2015) 4 SCC 334. In these circumstances, impugned order may be quashed and recovered amount be refunded to petitioner.

3. Deputy Government Advocate appearing for State opposed the prayer and submitted that respondents can recover the excess money which has been paid to petitioner in accordance with law.

4. Heard the counsel for petitioner.

5. Paragraph-18 of the judgment passed in case of Rafiq Masih (supra) is quoted as under:-

18. It is not possible to postulate all situations of hardship, which would govern employees o n th e issue o f recovery, where payments have mistakenly been made by the employer, in excess of their entitlement. Be that as it may, based on the decisions referred to herein above, we may, as a ready reference, summarise the following f e w situations, wherein recoveries by the employers, would be impermissible in law:

( i ) Recovery from employees belonging to Class-III and Class-IV service (or Group 'C' and Group 'D' service).

***

(iii) Recovery from employees, when the excess payment has been made for a period in excess of five years, before the order of recovery is issued.

*** ( v ) In any other case, where the Court arrives a t the conclusion, that recovery if made from t h e employee, would be iniquitous o r harsh or arbitrary to such an extent, as would far outweigh the equitable balance of the employer's right to recover.

6. Accordingly, the impugned recovery cannot be sustained in the eyes of law. Order dated 15.03.2023 is hereby quashed. If any amount is already recovered from the petitioner, the same be refunded to the petitioner.

7. With aforesaid directions, writ petition is disposed off.

8. Certified copy as per rules.

(VISHAL DHAGAT) JUDGE sp/-