Shriram Singh Verma vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh
2024 Latest Caselaw 14448 MP

Madhya Pradesh High Court

Shriram Singh Verma vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 16 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 16 th OF MAY, 2024
                                             WRIT PETITION No. 3534 of 2023

                           BETWEEN:-
                           SHRIRAM SINGH VERMA S/O SHRI JAGESHWAR
                           DAYAL VERMA, AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS, OCCUPATION:
                           RETIRED R/O POST / GRAM KUSMANIYA TEHSIL
                           KANNOD DISTT. DEWAS (MADHYA PRADESH)

                                                                                      .....PETITIONER
                           (BY SHRI YOGESH PARASHAR - ADVOCATE)

                           AND
                           1.    THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH THROUGH
                                 SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT OF MADHYA
                                 PRADESH,    DEPARTMENT    OF   SCHOOL
                                 EDUCATION, VALLABH BHAWAN MANTRALAYA
                                 BHOPAL (MADHYA PRADESH)

                           2.    THE DISTRICT EDUCATION          OFFICER DEWAS
                                 (MADHYA PRADESH)

                           3.    THE    PRINCIPAL GOVERNMENT NEW HIGH
                                 SCHOOL KANNOD TEHSIL KANNOD DISTRICT
                                 DEWAS (MADHYA PRADESH)

                           4.    THE JOINT DIRECTOR OF TREASURY AND
                                 ACCOUNTS UJJAIN DIVISION UJJAIN (MADHYA
                                 PRADESH)

                           5.    THE DISTRICT PENSION OFFICER DISTRICT
                                 DEWAS (MADHYA PRADESH)

                                                                                   .....RESPONDENTS
                           (BY SHRI TARUN KUSHWAH - GOVERNMENT ADVOCATE)

                                 This petition coming on for admission this day, th e court passed the
                           following:
Signature Not Verified
                                                            ORDER

Signed by: JYOTI CHOURASIA Signing time: 17-05-2024 13:46:17

By this petition preferred under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has challenged the order dated 27.12.2022 (Annexure P/1) passed by the respondents whereby recovery in the total sum of Rs.7,39,202/- (which includes the principal as well as the interest amount) has been directed to be made from him on account of excess payment.

2. The petitioner has retired from the post of Head Master.

3. From perusal of the impugned order, it appears that recovery is being made from him on account of wrong pay fixation.

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

passed in Writ Appeal No.815 of 2017 (State of Madhya Pradesh and Another vs. Jagdish Prasad Dubey and Another) and connected writ petitions reported in 2024(2) MPLJ 198. It has been held in paragraph No.35 as under:

"Answers to the questions referred

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 and Another vs. Brojo Nath Ganguly and Another, reported in (1986) 3 SCC 136 unless the undertaking is given voluntarily."

5 . In view of the above the order dated 27.12.2022 (Annexure P/1) passed by the respondents 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. The pay fixation is however maintained.

6. Since the recovery order passed against the petitioner has been quashed, the respondents are directed to make payment of the retiral dues to the petitioner forthwith in case there is no legal impediment for the same.

7. The petition is accordingly allowed and disposed off.

(PRANAY VERMA) JUDGE jyoti