Madhya Pradesh High Court
Ramesh Pal Singh vs Forest Department on 30 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 30 th OF MAY, 2024
WRIT PETITION No. 5682 of 2018
BETWEEN:-
RAMESH PAL SINGH S/O SH. MANPAL SINGH, AGED
ABOUT 61 YEARS, OCCUPATION: RETIRED, R/O 31,
VEER BAJRANG NAGAR MOROD TAPAL GHATI
KHANDWA ROAD (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....PETITIONER
(BY SHRI AKSHAY BHONDE - ADVOCATE)
AND
1. FOREST DEPARTMENT PRINCIPAL SECRETARY
VALLABH BHAWAN, BHOPAL (MADHYA
PRADESH)
2. CONSERVATOR OF FOREST AND SITTING
DIVISIONAL FOREST OFFICER (GENERAL) THE
STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH FOREST CAMPUS
NAVRATAN BAGH (MADHYA PRADESH)
3. DIVISIONAL PENSION OFFICER THE STATE OF
MADHYA PRADESH (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....RESPONDENTS
(BY SHRI ANENDRA SINGH PARIHAR - PANEL LAWYER)
This petition coming on for admission this day, th e court passed the
following:
ORDER
By this petition preferred under Article 226 of the Constitution of India,
the petitioner has challenged the action of the respondents whereby recovery in
the total sum of Rs.2,20,132/- (which includes the principal as well as the
interest amount) has been made from his retial emoluments on account of
excess payment.
2. The petitioner has retired from the post of Deputy Ranger/Forester as
Class-3 employee. It appears that recovery has been made from him on account
of wrong pay fixation.
3. 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."
4. In view of the above the action of the respondents is making recovery
from the petitioner hereby quashed. The amount recovered from the petitioner
b e 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. The petition is accordingly allowed and disposed off.
(PRANAY VERMA)
JUDGE
jyoti
