Madhya Pradesh High Court
Munni Lal Mourya vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 16 April, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:8472
1 WP-27987-2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT GWALIOR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE ASHISH SHROTI
ON THE 16th OF APRIL, 2025
WRIT PETITION No. 27987 of 2024
MUNNI LAL MOURYA
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri D.P. Singh - learned counsel for the petitioner.
Shri Sanjay Singh Kushwaha - learned counsel for the
respondents/State.
ORDER
1. The petitioner has filed this writ petition challenging recovery of
Rs.2,47,805/- which is shown as recoverable amount in his PPO filed as
Annexure P/3.
2. The petitioner was working as Sub-Inspector (In-charge) at Bhind.
He stood retired w.e.f. 31/08/2023. The PPO (Annexure P/3) was issued on
28/06/2024 wherein an amount of Rs.2,47,805/- has been shown as recovery
on account of some excess amount paid to the petitioner. Referring to
Annexure P/1, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that after his
retirement, re-fixation of his salary has been done w.e.f. 01/01/1986 to
01/07/2023 and the sum of Rs.1,21,557/- has been found to have been paid
in excess to the petitioner. Further an amount of Rs.1,26,248/- has been
directed to be recovered towards the interest.
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:8472
2 WP-27987-2024
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner placing reliance upon full Bench
decision of this Court in the case of State of Madhya Pradesh & others Vs.
Jagdish Prasad Dubey, 2024 SCC Online MP 1567 , submits that recovery of
amount cannot be made from the petitioner.
4. Learned counsel for the respondents submits that after the
petitioner's retirment while fixing his retiral dues, the matter was examined.
It was found that petitioner's salary was wrongly fixed in the year 1986
which was resulted in the impugned recovery.
5. Learned counsel for the respondents referring to indemnity bond
filed at page No.13 alongwith reply submits that the petitioner having
undertaken to refund the amount which is found to be paid in excess, he
cannot be allowed to challenge the amount of recovery.
6. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
7. The Full Bench in the case of Jagdish Prasad (supra) has passed the
following directions:-
"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
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:8472
3 WP-27987-2024
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. Converselyan
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
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:8472
4 WP-27987-2024
given voluntarily."
8. The date of submission of the indemnity bond filed at page No.14
alongwith return is not available in the document. Learned counsel for the
respondents was granted time to clarify the date of submission of the
indemnity bond, however, no such information is brought on record. In view
of the full Bench judgment, if indemnity bond is taken from the petitioner at
the time of retirement, his case would be covered under clause 35(a) of full
Bench judgment and the recovery of amount would be unsustainable in law.
Respondents are, therefore, directed to verify as to whether indemnity bond
was issued at the time of retirement or at the time of re-fixation of salary in
the year 1986. If the indemnity bond is submitted at the time of retirment, no
recovery can be made in view of the full Bench judgment and therefore, the
petitioner would be entitled to refund of the amount alongwith 6% interest
per annum.
9. Let reconsideration be made by respondents within a period of 90
days' from the date of production of certified copy of this order.
10. With the aforesaid, this writ petition stands disposed of.
(ASHISH SHROTI)
JUDGE
rahul
