Madhya Pradesh High Court
Abdul Aziz Khan vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 24 May, 2024
Author: Chief Justice
Bench: Ravi Malimath, Vishal Mishra
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE RAVI MALIMATH,
CHIEF JUSTICE
&
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VISHAL MISHRA
ON THE 24 th OF MAY, 2024
WRIT PETITION No. 6514 of 2024
BETWEEN:-
ABDUL AZIZ KHAN S/O LATE MR. KALLU KHAN, AGED
ABOUT 68 YEARS, OCCUPATION: RETIRED VEHICLE
DRIVER, OFFICE OF CHIEF MEDICAL AND HEALTH
OFFICER, SEHORE 466 001 (MADHYA PRADESH) R/O
HOUSE NO. S-3, SAI MEHNDI APARTMENT, WARD NO. 7,
KOH-E-FIZA, DISTRICT BHOPAL (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....PETITIONER
(BY SHRI VIJAY RAGHAV SINGH - ADVOCATE)
AND
1. THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH THROUGH
THE ADDITIONAL CHIEF SECRETARY PUBLIC
HEALTH AND FAMILY WELFARE DEPARTMENT
MINISTRY VALLABH BHAWAN BHOPAL
(MADHYA PRADESH)
2. COMMISSIONER HEALTH, DIRECTORATE OF
HEALTH SERVICES GOVERNMENT OF MADHYA
PR AD ES H SATPURA BHAWAN BHOPAL 462004
(MADHYA PRADESH) PHONE NO 0755 2441071 FAX
07552571399 EMAIL COMMRHELATH @MP.GOV.IN
(MADHYA PRADESH)
3. CHIEF MEDICAL AND HEALTH OFFICER SEHORE
OFFICE OF THE CHIEF MEDICAL AND HEALTH
OFFICER (CHANAKYAPURI DISTRICT SEHORE)
BSNL 9425377064 PHONE NO 075622 27022 E MAIL
[email protected] (MADHYA PRADESH)
4. DISTRICT PENSION OFFICER, OFFICE OF
DISTRICT PENSION OFFICER, DISTRICT SEHORE
466001 (MADHYA PRADESH) EMAIL
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: VINOD
VISHWAKARMA
Signing time: 5/24/2024
6:43:55 PM
2
[email protected] (MADHYA
PRADESH)
5. TREASURY OFFICER DISTRICT TREASURY
S EHOR E DISTRICT SEHORE 466001 (MADHYA
PRADESH)
.....RESPONDENTS
(BY SHRI RITWIK PARASHAR - GOVERNMENT ADVOCATE)
This petition coming on for admission this day, Hon'ble Shri Justice
Ravi Malimath, Chief Justice passed the following:
ORDER
The question involved herein is with respect to recovery from a
Government employee in view of the benefits which have been extended by the
State authorities.
2. The similar question came up for consideration before a Full Bench of this
Court in a reference in Writ Appeal No.815 of 2017 (State of M.P. and others
vs Jagdish Prasad Dubey) and the reference has been answered by the order
dated 06.03.2024 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."
3. The counsels appearing for the petitioner as well as for the State fairly
submit that the petition can be disposed off in terms of the judgment passed by
the Full Bench of this Court in the case of Jagdish Prasad Dubey (supra).
4. The counsel appearing for the petitioner has pointed out that the recovery
has already been effected, therefore, the case be taken up for consideration on
priority basis. The State counsel submits that they will examine the case of the
employee and pray for some time to be granted to them.
5. Under these circumstances, this writ petition is disposed off with a
direction to the respondents:
(i) to consider the petition as the representation filed on behalf of the
petitioner, examine his case in the light of the Full Bench judgment of
this Court in the case of Jagdish Prasad Dubey (supra) and take a
final decision as to whether any recovery can be made from him in
view of the law laid down by the Full Bench decision of this Court;
(ii) Since the recovery has already been effected by the respondents,
the case of the petitioner be taken up on priority basis. The
respondents-authorities to consider his case in the light of the Full
Bench judgment in the case of Jagdish Prasad Dubey (supra) and pass
a final order with respect to the fact that whether any recovery can be
effected looking to the facts and circumstances of the case and if the
respondents-authorities arrive at a conclusion that no recovery can
be made from him, the amount recovered from him be refunded along
with interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of recovery till
the date of realization. The aforesaid exercise be completed within a
period of three months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of
this order.
(iii) As the case pertains to the retired Government employee,
therefore, if after examining the matter it is found that no recovery is
liable to be made from him and revised PPO is required to be issued
to him, then the respondents-authorities are directed to revise his
pension in accordance with law and issue fresh PPO within the
aforesaid period.
6. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed off in above terms.
(RAVI MALIMATH) (VISHAL MISHRA)
CHIEF JUSTICE JUDGE
THK
