Madhya Pradesh High Court
Lakhan Lal Dehariya (Dead) Through Lrs ... vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 27 May, 2024
Author: Vishal Mishra
Bench: Vishal Mishra
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VISHAL MISHRA
ON THE 27 th OF MAY, 2024
WRIT PETITION No. 318 of 2022
BETWEEN:-
LAKHAN LAL DEHARIYA (DEAD) THROUGH LRS SMT.
GEETA DEHARIYA W/O LATE SHRI LAKHAN LAL
DEHARIYA, AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS, OCCUPATION:
HOUSEWIFE R/O POST BAGHUWAR TEHSIL KARELI
DISTRICT NARSINGHPUR (M.P.)
.....PETITIONER
(BY SHRI MOHAL LAL SHARMA - ADVOCATE)
AND
1. THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH THROUGH
PRINCIPAL SECRETARY FARMER WELFARE AND
AGRICULTURE DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
VALLABH BHAWAN BHOPAL (M.P.)
2. THE DIRECTOR FARMER WELFARE AND
AGRICULTURE DEPARTMENT KISHAN BHAWAN
BHOPAL (M.P.)
3. DEPUTY DIRECTOR FARMER WELFARE AND
AGRICULTURE DEPARTMENT DISTRICT
NARSINGHPUR (M.P.)
4. SUB-DIVISIONAL AGRICULTURE OFFICER
N AR SIN GHPUR SUB DIVISION GADARWARA
DISTRICT NARSINGHPUR (M.P.)
5. ASSISTANT LAND / SOIL CONERVATION OFFICER
N AR SIN GHPUR SUB DIVISION GADARWARA
DISTRICT NARSINGHPUR (M.P.)
6. DISTRICT PENSION OFFICER NARSINGHPUR
DISTRICT NARSINGHPUR (M.P.)
.....RESPONDENTS
(BY SHRI RITWIK PARASHAR - GOVERNMENT ADVOCATE)
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: VINOD
VISHWAKARMA
Signing time: 5/28/2024
11:12:51 AM
2
This petition coming on for admission this day, th e court passed the
following:
ORDER
This petition has been filed seeking the following reliefs -
"(i) To issue a writ in the nature of CERTIORARI for quashing of the
impugned recovery order dated 08.12.2021 (ANN. P/1) issued by the
respondent no.5. Accordingly, also quash the impugned recovery
calculation chart (Ann. P/2).
(ii) To issue a writ in the nature of MANDAMUS for direction to the
respondents no. 3 to release the amount of Gratuity to the Petitioner
as per his entitlement.
(iii) To call for records pertaining to the recovery case of the
Petitioner.
(iv) Any other reliefs deemed fit on facts and circumstances of the
instant case."
2. The record indicates that during pendency of the petition, the petitioner
has expired on 08.07.2022 and vide order dated 18.01.2023, his wife namely
Smt. Geeta Dehariya has been impleaded as party-petitioner. It is her case that
her husband stood retired from the post of Rural Agriculture Extension Officer
vide order dated 30.11.2021 from the office of respondent No.5. After his
superannuation, the recovery order dated 08.12.2021 has been passed whereby
recovery of Rs.1,92,548/- was ordered. It is submitted that the recovery has
been ordered by the respondent-authority towards the excess payment made to
the petitioner along with interest.
3. The learned State counsel has submitted that if fresh representation is
submitted by the petitioner to the concerning authorities, they will consider the
grievance of the petitioner and settle the dispute in the light of a Full Bench
decision of this Court in a reference in Writ Appeal No.815 of 2017 (State of
M.P. and others vs Jagdish Prasad Dubey) dated 06.03.2024.
4. A Full Bench of this Court in the case of State of M.P. and others vs
Jagdish Prasad Dubey (supra) while dealing with the issue as to recovery after
retirement, has held as follows :
"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
i n (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."
5. I n view whereof, and on hearing the contentions, this Court deems it
appropriate to dispose off the writ petition by directing the petitioner to file a
representation in this regard within a period of 15 days from the date of receipt
of certified copy of this order to the respondent No.4 who, in turn, is directed
to decide the same within a period of 45 days in the light of Full Bench decision
of this Court in the case of State of M.P. and others vs Jagdish Prasad Dubey
(supra).
6. Till the decision is taken by the authorities, no recovery will be made from
the petitioner. The impugned order dated 08.12.2021 is quashed. Let a fresh
decision be taken by the respondent No.4 on the representation of the petitioner
in the light of the observations made in the Full Bench decision of this Court in
the case of State of M.P. and others vs Jagdish Prasad Dubey (supra).
7. With these observations, the petition is disposed off finally. No order as
to costs.
(VISHAL MISHRA)
JUDGE
VV
