Durga Prasad Vishwakarma vs Public Health And Family Welfare ...
2024 Latest Caselaw 14090 MP

Madhya Pradesh High Court

Durga Prasad Vishwakarma vs Public Health And Family Welfare ... 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. 19315 of 2020

                          BETWEEN:-
                          DURGA PRASAD VISHWAKARMA S/O SHRI SHANKAR
                          LAL VISHWAKARMA, AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS,
                          OCCUPATION: SERVICE, ADDRESS HOUSE NO-71/1,
                          WARD NO-13, HOME GUARD OFFICE, JAI STAMBH
                          MARG, TEHSIL SHAJAPUR, DISTRICT SHAJAPUR
                          (MADHYA PRADESH)

                                                                                     .....PETITIONER
                          (BY SHRI RANJEET SEN - ADVOCATE)

                          AND
                          1.    STATE    OF    M.P. THROUGH    PRINCIPAL
                                SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT PUBLIC HEALTH AND
                                FAMILY WELFARE VALLABH BHAWAN, BHOPAL
                                (MADHYA PRADESH)

                          2.    CHIEF MEDICAL AND HEALTH               OFFICER
                                SHAJAPUR, DISTRICT SHAJAPUR           (MADHYA
                                PRADESH)

                          3.    BLOCK MEDICAL AND HEALTH OFFICER,
                                COMMUNITY     HEALTH    CENTRE-MOHAN
                                BADODIYA, DISTRICT SHAJAPUR (MADHYA
                                PRADESH)

                          4.    DISTRICT    TREASUTY   OFFICER SHAJAPUR,
                                DISTRICT SHAJAPUR (MADHYA PRADESH)

                          5.    JOINT DIRECTOR TREASURY, ACCOUNTS AND
                                PENSION DIVISIONAL OFFICE, UJJAIN, DISTRICT
                                UJJAIN (MADHYA PRADESH)

                                                                                  .....RESPONDENTS
                          (BY SHRI PRAKHAR TRIVEDI - ADVOCATE FOR STATE)

                                This petition coming on for admission this day, th e court passed the
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: SHAILESH
MAHADEV SUKHDEVE
Signing time: 5/16/2024
4:18:29 PM
                                                                2
                          following:
                                                                 ORDER

1. By this petition preferred under Article 226 of the Constitution of India the petitioner has challenged the order dated 4/12/2019 (Annexure P/1) and the calculation sheet (Annexure P/2) passed by the respondents whereby recovery in the sum of Rs.96,174/- (which includes the principal amount as well as interest amount) has been directed to be made from him on account of excess payment.

2. The petitioner has retired from the post of Sanganak (computer). From perusal of the impugned order, it appears that the recovery has been directed to be made from him on account of wrong pay fixation.

3. 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."

4. In view of the above, the impugned order dated 4/12/2019 (Annexure P/1) and the calculation sheet (Annexure P/2) passed by the respondents are 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 of the petitioner is however maintained.

5. The petition is accordingly allowed and disposed off.

C.c. as per rules.

(PRANAY VERMA) JUDGE SS/-