Madhya Pradesh High Court
Parshuram Rai vs The State Of Madhya Predesh on 28 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 28 th OF MAY, 2024
WRIT PETITION No. 14393 of 2024
BETWEEN:-
PARSHURAM RAI S/O SHRI RAMNARESH RAI, AGED
ABOUT 62 YEARS, OCCUPATION: RETIRED S.I. R/O
HOUSE NO 10 AVANTIKA COLONY WARD NO.13
DISTRICT RAISEN (M.P.)
.....PETITIONER
(BY SHRI KABEER PAUL - ADVOCATE)
AND
1. THE STATE OF MADHYA PREDESH THROUGH
SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE RAISEN DISTRICT
RAISEN (M.P.)
2. DISTRICT PENSION OFFICER DIRECTORATE OF
PENSION DISTRICT RAISEN (M.P.)
3. DIRECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE POLICE
HEADQUARTERS JAHAGIRABAD BHOPAL (M.P.)
.....RESPONDENTS
(BY SHRI ANKIT AGRAWAL - GOVERNMENT ADVOCATE )
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 summon the entire relevant record from the possession of the
official respondents;
(ii) Issue a Writ of Certiorari or any other Writ and quash and set-
aside the impugned order (Annexure P/1) and all subsequent and
incidental proceedings while holding the same as arbitrary, unjust
and erroneous in the eyes of law.
(iii) Consequently, issue a Writ of Mandamus, directing the
Respondents to refund the deducted amount, if any, along with
applicable interest rates.
(iv) Any other writ, order or direction as deem fit and proper in favour
of the petitioner in the interest of justice.
(v) Award cost of the litigation in favour of the petitioner."
2. T he record indicates that the petitioner stood retired from the post of
Assistant Sub Inspector on 29.02.2024 and after his superannuation, the
recovery order dated 10.03.2024 has been passed whereby recovery of
Rs.1,13,887/- 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 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.1 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 10.03.2024 is quashed. Let a fresh
decision be taken by the respondent No.1 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
