Jay Raam Sing vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh
2024 Latest Caselaw 14110 MP

Madhya Pradesh High Court

Jay Raam Sing 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. 18171 of 2020

                           BETWEEN:-
                           JAY RAAM SING S/O BUDDHA JI, AGED ABOUT 63
                           YEARS, OCCUPATION: RETIRED GOVT. EMPLOYEE 72,
                           SHIVANSH AVENUE,    DEWAS   ROAD    (MADHYA
                           PRADESH)

                                                                                          .....PETITIONER
                           (BY SHRI SHAKIL AHMED KHAN - ADVOCATE)

                           AND
                           1.    THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH THROUGH
                                 PRINCIPAL SECRETARY VALLABH BHAWAN,
                                 BHOPAL (MADHYA PRADESH)

                           2.    DIRECTOR GENERAL POLICE POLICE HEAD
                                 QUARTER BHOPAL (MADHYA PRADESH)

                           3.    SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE UJJAIN (MADHYA
                                 PRADESH)

                                                                                       .....RESPONDENTS
                           ( BY SHRI PRAKHAR TRIVEDI - PANEL LAWYER)

                                 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 22.10.2020 (Annexure P/2) passed by the respondents whereby a total sum of Rs.17,12,334/- (which includes the principal as well as the interest amount) has been directed to be recovered from him on account of excess payment. The said order has

subsequently been modified by the respondents themselves by order dated 23.12.2020 whereby the amount to be recovered from the petitioner has been reduced to Rs.15,87,164/-.

2. The petitioner has retired from the post of Constable. From perusal of the impugned order it appears that recovery has been made due to payment of excess amount of salary on account of wrong pay fixation since the punishment of withholding one increment with cumulative effect was not given effect to.

3. The Full Bench of this Court at Principal Seat Jabalpur in identical matters has quashed such recovery orders vide judgment dated 06.03.2024

passed in W.A. No.815/2017 (State of M.P. and Others V/s. Jagdish Prasad Dubey) and other connected Writ Petitions reported in 2024 SCC online MP 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 22.10.2020 (Annexure P/2) passed by the respondent is hereby quashed. The amount, if any, recovered from the petitioner be refunded to him along with interest @ 6% per annum from the date of recovery till date of payment. Let the same be done within a period of three months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order. However, no opinion is expressed on the order passed against the petitioner withholding his one increment with cumulative effect.

5. The petition is accordingly allowed and disposed off.

(PRANAY VERMA) JUDGE ns