Madhya Pradesh High Court
Bhogiram Jareriya vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 24 April, 2025
Author: Gurpal Singh Ahluwalia
Bench: G. S. Ahluwalia
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:9088
1 WP-150-2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT GWALIOR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE G. S. AHLUWALIA
ON THE 24th OF APRIL, 2025
WRIT PETITION No. 150 of 2023
BHOGIRAM JARERIYA
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Mr. Raj Shrivastava - Advocate for the petitioner.
Mr. Ajay Kumar Nirankari - Govt. Advocate for the State.
ORDER
This petition under Article 226 of Constitution of India has been filed
seeking the following reliefs :-
"1- यह क, र पो० क० 2 के ारा जार आदे श एने सर पी-1 को
िनर त कया जावे, एवं यािचकाकता से वसूल क गई रािश 148677/-
पये उसे वा पस क जावे।
2- यह क, सम पत अवकाश का नगद करण 7 दवस का और
दलाया जावे।
3- यह क, यािचकाकता को तृतीय समयमान वेतनमान का
भुगतान भी करवाया जावे।
4- यह क, यािचकाकता से बसूल क गई रािश 148677/- पर पर
उसे याज भी दलाया जावे।
5- यह क, अ य वह सहायता जो माननीय यायालय
यािचकाकताओं के हत म उिचत समझ द जावे।"
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:9088
2 WP-150-2023
2. It is submitted by counsel for petitioner that petitioner has retired on
31.01.2022 and by order dated 03.02.2022, a direction has been issued to
adjust excess payment from his amount of gratuity. It is submitted that
petitioner had retired from the post of Assistant Grade-III. In the light of
judgment passed by the Supreme Court in the case of State of Punjab and
Others Vs. Rafiq Masih (White Washer) and others reported in (2015) 7 SCC
334 , recovery cannot be made.
3. Respondents have filed their return and submitted that at the time of
retirement, petitioner had given an indemnity bond, therefore, in the light of
the undertaking given by the petitioner at the time of retirement, excess
payment made to the petitioner during his service tenure can be recovered.
4. Heard counsel for parties.
5. Only question for consideration in the present case is as to whether
excess payment on account of wrong calculation of salary made to the
petitioner during his service period can be recovered after his retirement or
not?
6. It is the case of respondents that at the time of retirement, petitioner
had given an undertaking and had also executed an indemnity bond,
therefore, only question for consideration is as to whether the undertaking
given by the petitioner at the time of retirement can be said to be a valid
undertaking in order to bring the case of the respondents within the law laid
down by the Supreme Court in the case of High Court of Punjab and
Haryana Vs. Jagdev Singh, reported in (2016) 14 SCC 267 ?
7. The Full Bench of this Court in the case of State of M.P. and
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:9088
3 WP-150-2023
another vs. Jagdish Prasad Dubey and another decided on 06.03.2024 in Writ
Appeal No.815/2017 has held 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 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.
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:9088
4 WP-150-2023
8. Thus, it is clear that any undertaking given by the employee at the
time of retirement in respect of any excess payment made decades ago
cannot be said to be a valid undertaking. Only that undertaking can be taken
into consideration which was given prior to release of the amount and not
subsequent to the release of the amount.
9. Under these circumstances, this Court is of the considered opinion
that in absence of the undertaking by the petitioner, law laid down by the
Supreme Court in the case of Jagdev Singh (supra) cannot be made
applicable to the facts and circumstances of the case.
10. Accordingly, order dated 03.02.2022 passed by District Transport
Officer, Ashoknagar to adjust the excess payment of Rs.1,48,677/- made to
the petitioner from 01.07.2014 till the date of retirement is hereby quashed.
11. It is submitted by counsel for petitioner that respondents have
already recovered an amount of Rs.15,000/-. Accordingly, respondents are
directed to refund the amount to the petitioner within a period of two months
from today, failing which the delayed payment shall carry interest at the rate
of 6% per annum till actual payment is made.
12. With aforesaid observations, petition is disposed of.
(G. S. AHLUWALIA)
JUDGE
AKS
