Madhya Pradesh High Court
Deonarayan Richariya 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. 25314 of 2022
BETWEEN:-
DEONARAYAN RICHARIYA S/O LATE SHRI SUNDAR
LAL RICHARIYA, AGED ABOUT 68 YEARS,
OCCUPATION: RETIRED SECTION SUPERVISOR R/O
NARMADA NAGAR, BARMAN (KALAN) TEHSIL KARELI
DISTRICT NARSINGHPUR (M.P.)
.....PETITIONER
(BY SHRI MOHAN LAL SHARMA - ADVOCATE)
AND
1. THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH THROUGH ITS
PRINCIPAL SECRETARY PUBLIC HEALTH AND
FAMILY WELFARE DISTRICT BHOPAL (M.P.)
2. DIRECTOR / COMMISSIONER DIRECTORATE OF
HEALTH SERVICES, BHOPAL DISTRICT BHOPAL
(M.P.)
3. CHIEF MEDICAL AND HEALTH OFFICER
NARSINGHPUR DISTRICT NARSINGHPUR (M.P.)
4. IN-CHARGE OFFICER PRIMARY HEALTH CENTRE
S H R I N AG AR TEHSIL GOTEGAON, DISTRICT
NARSINGHPUR (M.P.)
5. DISTRICT PENSION OFFICER NARSINGHPUR
DISTRICT NARSINGHPUR (M.P.)
6. DISTRICT TREASURY OFFICER NARSINGHPUR
DISTRICT NARSINGHPUR (M.P.)
.....RESPONDENTS
(BY SHRI RITWIK PARASHAR - GOVERNMENT ADVOCATE)
This petition coming on for admission this day, th e court passed the
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: VINOD
VISHWAKARMA
Signing time: 5/28/2024
11:12:51 AM
2
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 order dated 07.09.2022 (ANN. P/1) issued by the
respondent no.3.
(ii) To issue a writ in the nature of CERTIORARI for quashing of the
part portion of the PPO (ANN. P/2) issued by the respondent no.5 so
far it relates to the recovery of Rs.49,140/- from the retiral dues of the
Petitioner. Accordingly, the respondents be directed to reimburse the
petitioner with aforesaid amount along with 12% interest and all
other consequential benefits.
(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. T he record indicates that the petitioner stood retired from the post of
Section Supervisor from the office of Primary Health Centre, Shrinagar
Gotegaon District Narsinghpur on 31.05.2014 and after his superannuation, the
recovery order dated 07.09.2022 has been passed whereby recovery of
Rs.49,140/- 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. T he 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.3 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 07.09.2022 is quashed. Let a fresh
decision be taken by the respondent No.3 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
