Motilal Verma vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh
2024 Latest Caselaw 12441 MP

Madhya Pradesh High Court

Motilal Verma vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 3 May, 2024

Author: Vivek Agarwal

Bench: Vivek Agarwal

                                                           1
                          IN    THE       HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
                                               AT JABALPUR
                                                    BEFORE
                                      HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VIVEK AGARWAL
                                                 ON THE 3 rd OF MAY, 2024
                                            WRIT PETITION No. 13858 of 2016

                         BETWEEN:-
                         MOTILAL VERMA S/O LATE RAM MILAN VERMA,
                         AGED   ABOUT   65  YEARS, OCCUPATION: PUMP
                         ATTENDENT   RETIRED   LALAN   TOLA LALPUR
                         AMARPATAN (MADHYA PRADESH)

                                                                                        .....PETITIONER
                         (BY SHRI RAKESH SINGH - ADVOCATE)

                         AND
                         1.    THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH THROUGH ITS
                               SECRETARY PUBLIC HEALTH AND FAMILY
                               WELFARE DEPARTMENT VALLABH BHAWAN
                               BHOPAL (MADHYA PRADESH)

                         2.    DIRECTOR DIRECTORATE OF HEALTH SERVICES
                               SATPURA BHAWAN BHOPAL (MADHYA PRADESH)

                         3.    DIVISIONAL    JOINT    DIRECTOR   HEALTH
                               SERVICES DIVIN. REWA (MADHYA PRADESH)

                         4.    CHIEF MEDICAL AND HEALTH OFFICER
                               DISTRICT  HOSPITAL SATNA DISTT. SATNA
                               (MADHYA PRADESH)

                                                                                      .....RESPONDENTS
                         (STATE BY SHRI DEEPAK SAHU - ADVOCATE)

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

1. Petitioner is aggrieved of the action of the respondents of deducting an amount of Rs.1,91,017/- from the GPF of the petitioner on account of excess

payment of salary without showing the period of such excess payment after his retirement on the strength of an undertaking, which is available on record as Annexure R/1 dated 6.1.2015 whereas the petitioner had attained the age of superannuation on 31.12.2014.

2. This case is squarely covered by Paragraph No.35(c) in reference to Answer to Question No.3 of the judgment of the Full Bench of this Hon'ble High Court rendered in Writ Appeal No.815/2017 (State of Madhya Pradesh & Others versus Jagdish Prasad Dubey) & Other allied matters on 6.3.3024. Paragraph No.35 of Writ Appeal No.815/2017 (State of Madhya Pradesh & Others versus Jagdish Prasad Dubey) runs as under:-

Answers to the questions referred

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.

3. In view of Paragraph No.35(c) in reference to Answer to Question No.3 of the judgment of the Full Bench of this Hon'ble High Court rendered in Writ Appeal No.815/2017 (State of Madhya Pradesh & Others versus Jagdish Prasad Dubey) & Other allied matters on 6.3.3024, it is apparent that undertaking after the date of retirement of the petitioner is of no consequence, therefore, the recovery in the case at hand is not sustainable in the eyes of law.

The impugned order is hereby quashed. The respondents are directed to refund the excess amount to the petitioner alongwith interest @ 8% Per Annum from within thirty days from today.

4. Accordingly, this writ petition is allowed and disposed of.

(VIVEK AGARWAL) JUDGE amit