Madhya Pradesh High Court
Dr. Smt. Madhu Jain vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 21 April, 2025
Author: Vishal Mishra
Bench: Vishal Mishra
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:18073
1 WP-12496-2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VISHAL MISHRA
ON THE 21st OF APRIL, 2025
WRIT PETITION No. 12496 of 2025
DR. SMT. MADHU JAIN
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Rajesh Kumar Tiwari - Advocate for petitioner.
Shri Mohan Sausarkar - Government Advocate for State.
ORDER
This petition has been filed seeking the following reliefs:-
"(i) To issue writ of certiorari kindly be quashed the order
impugned dated 25.10.2024 (Ann.P-2) and also quash the recovery
part of order dt. 02.11.24 (Ann.P/3) so far it relates to the
petitioner.
(ii) To issue writ of mandamus kindly be direct the respondents to
refund the recovered amount with interest of @ 8%.
(iii) To grant any other relief and consequential benefit which this
Hon'ble Court may deemed fit in the circumstances of the present
case including cost of the petition."
Learned State counsel has fairly 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)
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:18073
2 WP-12496-2025
while dealing with the issue as to recovery after 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 90 days in the
light of Full Bench decision of this Court in the case of Jagdish Prasad
Dubey (supra).
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:18073
3 WP-12496-2025
The impugned orders of recovery dated 25.10.2024 (Annexure P/2)
and 02.11.2024 (Annnexure P/3) are 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 90 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 stands disposed off finally. No
order as to costs.
(VISHAL MISHRA)
JUDGE
THK
