Madhya Pradesh High Court
Priveen Dhakad vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 14 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 14 th OF MAY, 2024
WRIT PETITION No. 16578 of 2021
BETWEEN:-
PRIVEEN DHAKAD S/O LATE SHRI DEEPCHANDRA
DHAKAD, OCCUPATION: RETIRED, ADDRESS D-3/14
DHANVANTARI, HELATH KENDRA YOJANA,
NANAKHEDA UJJAIN (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....PETITIONER
(BY MS. SUMANLATA TAMRAKAR - ADVOCATE)
AND
1. THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH THROGUH
SACHIV PWD VIBHAG MANTRALAY, VALLABH
BHAWAN BHOPAL (MADHYA PRADESH)
2. PRAMUKH ABHIYANTA LOK NIRMAN VIBHAG,
BHOPAL (MADHYA PRADESH)
3. MUKHAY ABHIYANTA LOK NIRMAN VIBHAG
UJJAIN (MADHYA PRADESH)
4. SAMYUKT SANCHALAK KOSH AVAM LEKHA
BHARATPURI DIST UJJAIN (MADHYA PRADESH)
5. ADIKSHAN YANTRI LOK NIRMAN VIBHAB
MANDAL UJJAIN (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....RESPONDENTS
(BY SHRI PRAKHAR TRIVEDI - ADVOCATE 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 order dated 3/10/2020 whereby recovery
in the sum of Rs.1,85,515/- (which includes the principal as well as the interest
amount) has been directed to be made from him. The petitioner has retired from
the post of Assistant Grade II in the PWD department.
2. From perusal of the impugned order, it appears that recovery has been
directed to be made from the petitioner on account of wrong pay fixation. The
Full Bench of this Court at Principal Seat Jabalpur in identical matters has
quashed such recovery orders vide judgment dated 6/3/2024 passed in
W.A.No.815/2017 (State of Madhya Pradesh & Others V/s. Jagdish Prasad
Dubey) and other connected writ petitions reported in 2024 SCC online M.P.
1567. It has been held in paragraph No.35 as under :-
"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 the above, the impugned order dated 3/10/2020 (Annexure
P/2) is hereby quashed. The amount, if any, recovered from the petitioner be
refunded to him along with interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of
recovery till date of payment. Let the same be done within a period of 3 months
from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order. The pay fixation is
however maintained.
4. The petition is accordingly allowed and disposed off.
C.c. as per rules.
(PRANAY VERMA)
JUDGE
SS/-
