Madhya Pradesh High Court
Jugal Kishore Varma vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 3 October, 2024
Author: Vishal Mishra
Bench: Vishal Mishra
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2024:MPHC-JBP:50605
1 WP-30288-2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VISHAL MISHRA
ON THE 3 rd OF OCTOBER, 2024
WRIT PETITION No. 30288 of 2024
JUGAL KISHORE VARMA
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Anirudh Pandey - Advocate for the petitioner.
Shri Atul Dwivedi - Panel Lawyer for the State.
ORDER
This petition has been filed assailing the order dated 01.01.2018
(Annexure P/2) passed by the respondent No.5 whereby an amount of
Rs.1,38,702/- has been recovered from the retiral dues of the petitioner. The
petitioner is also claiming time pay scale and increment from due date.
Learned State counsel has submitted that the question involved herein
is covered by the decision of Full Bench of this Court passed in a reference
Writ Appeal No.815 of 2017 (State of M.P. and others vs Jagdish Prasad
Dubey) dated 06.03.2024 and if a 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 Jagdish Prasad Dubey (supra).
A Full Bench of this Court in the case of Jagdish Prasad Dubey
(supra) while dealing with the issue as to recovery after
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2024:MPHC-JBP:50605
2 WP-30288-2024
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 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."
In 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 respondents/concerned authority
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 Jagdish Prasad Dubey (supra) .
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2024:MPHC-JBP:50605
3 WP-30288-2024
The impugned order dated 01.01.2018 (Annexure P-2) is hereby
quashed. Since the recovery has already been made in the matter, therefore,
the authorities are directed to complete the proceedings within a period of 45
days. If the petitioner is not found entitled for any recovery, then the
recovered amount, if any, be refunded to him along with interest @ 6% per
annum from the date of recovery till the date of payment.
With these observations, the petition is disposed off finally. No order
as to costs.
(VISHAL MISHRA)
JUDGE
L.Raj
