Madhya Pradesh High Court
Shri Chandrasen Lambhate vs Farmer Welfare And Agriculture ... on 7 April, 2025
Author: Vijay Kumar Shukla
Bench: Vijay Kumar Shukla
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:9310
1 WP-8737-2018
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT INDORE
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VIJAY KUMAR SHUKLA
ON THE 7 th OF APRIL, 2025
WRIT PETITION No. 8737 of 2018
SHRI CHANDRASEN LAMBHATE
Versus
FARMER WELFARE AND AGRICULTURE DEPARTMENT AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shat Anand Agrawal, counsel for the petitioner.
Shri Anand Bhatt, G.A. for State.
ORDER
With the consent of parties, heard finally.
2.The petitioner who is a retired Govt. servant is challenging the order dated
3.01.2018 issued by respondent Nos.3 and 4 whereby a recovery of Rs.1,06,263/-
has been ordered.
3. Facts of the case are that petitioner was initially appointed as Cleaner in
Class-IV in 1975. He was thereafter promoted as LDC in 1985. He was again
promoted from the post of LDC to UDC Grade-II in 2009. On account of good
work the petitioner was again promoted as Accountant on 28.05.2014 which he
refused to accept and as such he was confirmed UDC Grade-II till his retirement
on 31.05.2017 in the payscale of Rs.4500-7000/-. On 31.05.2017 he was allowed
to retire vide order dated 31.05.2017. After about 7 months after his retirement he
received pension cover sheet marked as Annx.P/4 in which entry of recovery of
Rs.1,06,263/- was shown and this amount was recovered from the amount of
gratuity payable to the petitioner. In fact the recovery was made illegally and
without giving opportunity of hearing. The petitioner is being granted 90%
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:9310
2 WP-8737-2018
pension instead of 100%. The petition is against illegal recovery and amount of
gratuity recovered from him.
4. Counsel for the petitioner submits that the the recovery from the petitioner
cannot be made as there is no misrepresentation or fraud committed by the
petitioner in fixation of pay. He has relied on the judgment passed by the Apex
Court in the case of Shyam Babu Verma Vs. Union of india, 1994(2) SCC 521,
Sahib Ram Vs. State of Haryana , 1995 Supp (1) SCC 18, Chandi Prasad Uniyal
Vs. State of Uttarakhand, (2012) 8 SCC 417 and Syed Abdul Kadir Vs. State of
Bihar, (2009) 3 SCC 475 and Yogeshwar Prasad Vs. National Institute of
Education Planning, (2010) 14 SCC 323.
5. Respondents have filed reply and stated that petitioner was promoted by
order dated 28.05.2014 to the post of Accountant but he refused to accept the
promotional post of Accountant. It is submitted that petitioner was given benefit of
krammonat payscale with a condition that if he refuses to accept the promotional
post, his krammonat payscale shall be withdrawn, therefore on refusal of
promotional post, krammonati was withdrawn resulting in recovery of
Rs.1,06,263/-. It is further stated that on the basis of undertaking Annx.R/2
recovery is being made. Counsel for State vehementally argued that since the
petitioner was given excess payment due to the mistake of the department, hence,
he is not entitled for the same, therefore it is recoverable.
6. Heard learned counsel for the parties.
7. 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 & Anr. vs. Jagdish Prasad
Dubey & Anr.) and connected writ petitions reported in 2024 SCC OnLine MP
1567, it has been held in paragraph No.35 as under:-
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:9310
3 WP-8737-2018
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."
8. On the anvil of aforesaid judgments, the facts of the present case are
examined and it is noted that recovery is being made in the present case on the
ground that petitioner was given benefit of krammonati for which he was not
entitled. Admittedly it is not the case of respondents that there was any
misrepresentation or cheating committed by the petitioner. The aforesaid benefit
was given while in service and after the retirement, the recovery is being made.
9. So far as undertaking (Annx.R/2) dated 1.3.2018 filed in this case is
concerned, the same was taken at the time of settlement of retiral dues and the
other page of Annx.R/2 reveals that same is dated 15.5.2009 and the undertaking
was in respect of excess payment in pursuant to revision of pay Rules w.e.f.
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:9310
4 WP-8737-2018
1.01.2006. In view of answer of the full Bench the recovery on the basis of an
undertaking/indemnity bond the recovery cannot be made on the earlier fixation of
pay. Apart from that the recovery of the excess amount paid as salary cannot be
recovered from a retired Government servant. Admittedly in the present case
procedure for recovery prescribed under Rule 65 and 66 of Chapter VIII of M.P.
Civil Services Pension Rules, 1976 are not followed.
10. In view of the above, the impugned recovery order dated 3.01.2018 is
hereby quashed. The amount, if any, recovered from the petitioner be refunded to
him along with interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of recovery till
date of payment. Let the same be done within a period of 3 months from the date
of receipt of a certified copy of this order. The pay fixation of the petitioner is
however maintained.
The petition is accordingly allowed and disposed off.
(VIJAY KUMAR SHUKLA)
JUDGE
MK
