Madhya Pradesh High Court
Dr Saroj Kothari vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 15 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 15 th OF MAY, 2024
WRIT PETITION No. 9339 of 2023
BETWEEN:-
DR SAROJ KOTHARI D/O LATE DR M.L. KOTHARI,
AGED ABOUT 66 YEARS, OCCUPATION: RETD FROM
SERVICE, R/O: 117 KANCHAN BAGH, INDORE (MADHYA
PRADESH)
.....PETITIONER
(SHRI AJAY JAIN - ADVOCATE)
AND
1. THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH
COMMISSIONER DEPARTMENT OF HIGHER
EDUCATION, VALLABH BHAWAN, BHOPAL
(MADHYA PRADESH)
2. GOVT. MAHARANI LAXMIBAI POST GRADUATE
GIRLS COLLEGE THROUGH ITS PRINCIPAL KILA
BHAWAN, INDORE (MADHYA PRADESH)
3. DIST PENSION OFFICER PENSION OFFICE,
INDORE (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....RESPONDENTS
(SHRI TARUN KUSHWAH - GOVERNMENT ADVOCATE)
This petition coming on for admission this day, th e court passed the
following:
ORDER
This writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been
preferred by the petitioner challenging the orders dated 16.09.2022 (Annexure
P-8) and 23.09.2022 (Annexure P-9) whereby a total sum of Rs.6,65,836/-
(which includes the principal as well as the interest amount) has been directed to
be recovered from him.
2. The petitioner has retired from the post of lecturer. From perusal of
the impugned orders, it appears that recovery is being made from the petitioner
on account of excess payment which was made due to excess annual increment
payment.
3. The Full Bench of this Court at Principal Seat Jabalpur in identical
matters has quashed such recovery order vide order dated 06.03.2024 passed
i n Writ Appeal No.815/2017 (State of Madhya Pradesh and Ors. Vs.
Jagdish Prasad Dubey) and other connect writ petitions reported in 2024 (2)
MPLJ 198. It has been held in Para 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 orders dated 16.09.2022
(Annexure P-8) and 23.09.2022 (Annexure P-9) 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 the date of
payment. Let the same be done within a period of 90 days from the date of
receipt of certified copy of this order.
The petition is accordingly allowed and disposed off.
(PRANAY VERMA)
JUDGE
Anushree
