Madhya Pradesh High Court
Dr. (Smt) Ashoka Shrivastava vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 9 May, 2024
Author: Pranay Verma
Bench: Pranay Verma
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT INDORE
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE PRANAY VERMA
ON THE 9 th OF MAY, 2024
WRIT PETITION No. 24309 of 2022
BETWEEN:-
DR. (SMT) ASHOKA SHRIVASTAVA W/O SHRI PRAMOD
SHRIVASTAVA, AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS, OCCUPATION:
RETIRED PRINCIPAL PG COLLEGE, R/O.102, CRESSIDA-
1, APOLLO DB CITI NIPANIYA, INDORE (MADHYA
PRADESH)
.....PETITIONER
(BY SHRI YOGESH PARASHAR - ADVOCATE)
AND
1. THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH THROUGH
SECRETARY OF THE GOVT. OF M.P.,
DEPARTMENT OF HIGHER EDUCATION VALLABH
BHAWAN MANTRALAYA, BHOPAL (MADHYA
PRADESH)
2. THE COMMISSIONER OF HIGHER EDUCATION,
GOVERNMENT OF MADHYA PRADESH, SATPURA
BHAWAN, DISTRICT BHOPAL (MADHYA
PRADESH)
3. THE DIVISIONAL PENSION OFFICER, INDORE
DIVISION COLLECTORATE CAMPUS, MOTI
TABELA, DISTRICT INDORE (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....RESPONDENTS
(BY SHRI ANENDRA SINGH PARIHAR - P.L. FOR STATE)
This petition coming on for admission this day, th e court passed the
following:
ORDER
1 . By this petition preferred under Article 226 of the Constitution of
India, the petitioner has challenged the recovery initiated by the respondents
from her in the sum of Rs.2,27,565/- inclusive of interest component of
Rs.1,15,489/- after her retirement.
2 . As per the petitioner, she was appointed as a lecturer (Assistant
Professor) on 15/12/1997. Upon attaining the age of superannuation she retired
on 31/8/2017. Thereafter in the year 2021, recovery in a sum of Rs.2,27,565/-
has been initiated against her on account of wrong pay fixation. It is submitted
that the petitioner was not at any fault in the matter of her pay fixation and no
misrepresentation was made on her part. The mistake, if any, was of
respondents themselves for which the petitioner cannot be penalized. The
petitioner has not furnished any undertaking that in case the pay fixation is
found to be erroneous, the excess amount paid to her can be recovered from
her. It is hence submitted that impugned action of recovery be quashed.
3. Per contra, learned counsel for respondents/State submits that on
account of wrong pay fixation the petitioner was paid excess salary during her
service period and when the said mistake has been discovered, recovery is
being made from her in which no fault can be found in view of which the
petition deserves to be dismissed.
4. The Full Bench of this Court in State of M.P. & Ors. V/s. Jagdish
Prasad Dubey, 2024 (2) MPLJ 198 has held as under :-
"26. The guidelines would indicate that an undertaking has
to be furnished by the employee to the effect that he will refund the
excess payment made to him. It is only on furnishing of such an
undertaking, the payment towards revision of pay would be made
to him. Therefore, this goes to indicate that an undertaking is
required to be furnished at the time when the revision of pay has
taken place. The same is also reflected in the judgment in the case
of Jagdev Singh (supra). Therefore, the undertaking which is being
furnished at the time of extending the benefits of revision of pay to
an employee is required to be taken note of. The indemnity bond in
the form of an undertaking furnished at the fag end of service
career cannot be said to be an undertaking for which the recovery
of excess payment which has been made decades ago could become
effective. The judgment of the Larger Bench of the Hon'ble
Supreme Court in the case of Syed Abdul Qadir (supra) has to be
followed. Prior to initiating recovery, exceptional circumstances as
pointed out in the aforesaid case are also required to be
considered.
2 7 . Hence for all these reasons, we answer the Question
No.1 to the effect that recovery can be ordered to be effected from
the pensionary benefits or from the salary in view of the
undertaking or indemnity bond given by the employee at the stage
when the grant of benefit of pay refixation is made."
5. In the present case the recovery which is being made from the
petitioner is on account of her wrong pay fixation done in the year 2006. The
recovery is being made after her retirement. Along with the return an indemnity
bond has been filed by the respondents as (Annexure R/2). The same is
however, not dated. The same cannot by any stretch of imagination be said to
be an undertaking furnished by the petitioner to the effect that in case her pay
fixation is found incorrect, the excess amount paid can be recovered from her.
Thus it has not been shown that any undertaking was furnished by the petitioner
at the time of her pay fixation. There has not been any misrepresentation on part
of the petitioner in the matter of her pay fixation. The mistake is of the
respondents themselves who cannot recover the excess amount paid to the
petitioner in absence of any undertaking having been furnished by her at the time
of the pay fixation. The impugned recovery being made from the petitioner is
hence apparently erroneous and cannot be sustained.
6. Consequently, the petition deserves to be and is accordingly allowed.
The impugned recovery being made from the petitioner is hereby quashed. The
amount, if any, recovered from the petitioner be paid to her along with interest
at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of recovery till date of payment.
7. Let the same be done within a period of 3 months from the date of
receipt of certified copy of this order. Pay fixation of the petitioner is however
maintained.
C.c. as per rules.
(PRANAY VERMA)
JUDGE
SS/-
