Madhya Pradesh High Court
Umashankar Pal vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 16 April, 2025
Author: Subodh Abhyankar
Bench: Subodh Abhyankar
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:10025
1 WP-75-2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT INDORE
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE SUBODH ABHYANKAR
ON THE 16th OF APRIL, 2025
WRIT PETITION No. 75 of 2022
UMASHANKAR PAL
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Yash Pal Rathore - Advocate for the petitioner.
Ms. Bhagyashree Gupta- G.A. for the State.
ORDER
1] The petitioner is seeking a direction to refund the amount of
Rs.87,698/-, which has been illegally recovered from the gratuity amount
payable to the petitioner towards excess payment along with interest. He has
also prayed for quashment of impugned gratuity payment order deducting
the amount of excess payment and further direction has been prayed to given
the benefit already given and revise the pension.
2] Facts of the case are that the petitioner was initially appointed on
the post of Peon. He retired on completion of age of superannuation on
30.09.2020. The respondent No.4 issued pension payment order (PPO). The
respondent No.3 issued gratuity payment order recovering amount of
Rs.87,698/-.
3] Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the recovery after
retirement from the retiral dues is illegal and arbitrary. He further submits
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:10025
2 WP-75-2022
that the issue involved in the present petition is squarely covered by the
judgments passed by this Court.
4] Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was
granted the benefit of regular pay scale and the said recovery is being made
by taking the amount from his pension and gratuity. The same is illegal and
arbitrary and contrary to the law laid down by the Apex Court in the case
of State Of Punjab & Ors vs Rafiq Masih (White Washer) reported in AIR
2015 SUPREME COURT 696.
5] Learned counsel for the respondent/state submits that the
petitioner has furnished an undertaking to the effect that if the excess
payment is made on account of erroneous fixation of pay, the same shall be
liable to be recovered. He has referred the undertaking filed along with the
reply.
6] 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:-
"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
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:10025
3 WP-75-2022
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."
7] In view of the aforesaid, answer of the full Bench the recovery on
the basis of 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.
8] Counsel for the petitioner submits that 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.
9] In view of the above, the impugned recovery order is hereby
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:10025
4 WP-75-2022
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 certified copy of this order. The pay
fixation of the petitioner is, however, maintained.
10] The petition is, accordingly, allowed and disposed of.
(SUBODH ABHYANKAR)
JUDGE
Bahar
