Madhya Pradesh High Court
Heeralal Agrawal vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 15 May, 2024
Author: Sanjay Dwivedi
Bench: Sanjay Dwivedi
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE SANJAY DWIVEDI
ON THE 15 th OF MAY, 2024
WRIT PETITION No. 1278 of 2016
BETWEEN:-
HEERALAL AGRAWAL S/O LATE SHRI BINDRAWAN
AGRAWAL, AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS, OCCUPATION:
PUMP OPERATOR FISHRIES DEP. GANESH BAG AREA
JATARA (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....PETITIONER
(BY SHRI KARNIK SINGH - ADVOCATE)
AND
1. THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH THROUGH
THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY FISHRIES DEP
VALLABH BHAWAN BHOPAL (MADHYA PRADESH)
2. THE DIRECTOR, FISHERIES DEPARTMENT, M.P.
BHOPAL, (MADHYA PRADESH)
3. THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR, FISHERIES
D E PA R T M E N T SAGAR DIVISION SAGAR,
(MADHYA PRADESH)
4. ASSISTANT DIRECTOR, FISHERIES
D E P A R T M E N T , TIKAMGARH, (MADHYA
PRADESH)
.....RESPONDENTS
(BY MISS ANKITA KHARE - PANEL LAWYER)
This petition coming on for admission this day, th e court passed the
following:
ORDER
The petitioner, by the instant petition filed under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India, is challenging the validity of order dated 17.11.2015
(Annexure-P/3) whereby a recovery amounting to Rs.3,70,298/- is directed to
be made from him on the ground that while granting him the benefit of Sixth Pay
Commission, he has been paid excess amount.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that being a Pump
Operator which in fact is a Class-IV post, the petitioner got retired from service
and thereafter, by the impugned order dated 17.11.2015 (Annexure-P/3), the
respondents have imposed a recovery amounting to Rs.3,70,298/- upon the
petitioner. He has further submitted that in view of the judgment dated
06.03.2024 passed by the Full Bench of this Court in Writ Appeal No.815 of
2017 [The State of Madhya Pradesha and others Vs. Jagdish Prasad
Dubey] and other connected cases, no recovery from a retired employee that
too holding Class-IV post can be made from him/her.
3. On the other hand, learned Panel Lawyer has opposed the submissions
made by learned counsel for the petitioner and submitted that at the time of
fixation of pay scale, the petitioner had made an undertaking that if any amount
is paid to him in excess on account of fixation of his pay, then the Government
may recover the same and as such, in view of the law laid down by the Supreme
Court in a case reported in (2012) 8 SCC 417 [Chandi Prasad Uniyal Vs.
State of Uttarakhand], recovery of excess payment made to the petitioner can
be made from him and there is nothing illegal in it.
4. I have heard the rival submissions advanced by learned counsel for the
parties and perused the record.
5. The Full Bench in the case of Jagdish Prasad Dubey (supra), dealing
with question as involved in the present case has observed as under:
'27. 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.'
6. Though, learned Panel Lawyer has submitted that the petitioner at the time
of fixation of his pay had made an undertaking for recovering the amount, if
any, is paid to him in excess, but in support of such stand, no document has
filed along with their reply and as such, in absence of any such document the
said submission cannot be taken note of. Consequently, in view of the
observation made in the case of Jagdish Prasad Dubey (supra), I am setting
aside the impugned order of recovery dated 17.11.2015 (Annexure-P/3).
Accordingly, the respondents are directed to refund the amount to the
petitioner, if any, is recovered under the head of excess payment made to him
within a period of 60 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order, failing
which, the recovered amount shall carry interest @12% till its actual payment
made to the petitioner.
7. With the aforesaid, the petition stands allowed and disposed of.
(SANJAY DWIVEDI)
JUDGE
dm
