Mukesh Chauhan vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh
2025 Latest Caselaw 8353 MP

Madhya Pradesh High Court

Mukesh Chauhan vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 24 April, 2025

Author: Dwarka Dhish Bansal

Bench: Dwarka Dhish Bansal

                                                  1                  W.P-5175-2024


     IN THE           HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
                          AT JABALPUR
                              BEFORE
            HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE DWARKA DHISH BANSAL
                     ON THE 24th OF APRIL, 2025
                   WRIT PETITION No. 5175 of 2024
                          MUKESH CHAUHAN
                               Versus
              THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS

Appearance:
     ShriKedarnath Singh Purte - Advocate for the petitioner.
     ShriAnshumanSwamy - Govt. Advocate for respondents/State.

                                          ORDER

This writ petition has been preferred by the petitioner challenging the order dated 30.01.2024 (Annexure P/1), passed by respondent 2 directing recovery of an amount of Rs.5,23,453/- pursuant to order of re-fixation of pay dated 15.01.2024 (Annexure R/1).

2. In short the facts are that the petitioner is a Class-III employee and on the date of passing of the order dated 30.01.2024 was holding the post of Assistant Sub-Inspector. If the contents of order dated 30.01.2024 (Annexure P/1) are taken to be true, then vide order dated 12.06.2001, the petitioner was punished by withholding of two annual increments with cumulative effect, but the same was not given effect timely and was given effect on 15.01.2024 whereby re- fixation of pay was done after about 23 years and recovery of an amount of Rs.2,93,358/- along with interest of Rs.2,30,095/- i.e. total amount of Rs.5,23,453/- was ordered against the petitioner, who was due to retire in the month of June, 2024.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the order dated 12.06.2001 was not challenged by the petitioner and the same was also not given effect by the respondents for the reasons not known to the petitioner, but suddenly vide 2 W.P-5175-2024

order dated 30.01.2024 (Annexure P/1) recovery of an amount of Rs.5,23,453/- has been ordered. He submits that in the light of decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Punjab and others Vs. Rafiq Masih,(2015) 4 SCC 334 and even in the light of another decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of High Court of Punjab & Haryana v. Jagdev Singh, AIR 2016 SC 3523 = (2016) 14 SCC 267 as well as full bench decision of this Court in the case of The State of Madhya Pradesh and others vs. Jagdish Prasad Dubey, 2024 Supreme (MP) 144, alleged recovery is not permissible. With these submissions, he prays for allowing the writ petition.

4. With support of the Return, learned counsel appearing for respondents/State submits that order dated 30.01.2024 (Annexure P/1) has been issued pursuant to the order dated 12.06.2001, whereby the petitioner was punished by inflicting penalty of stopping two annual increments with cumulative effect. However, nothing has been said in the Return as to why the recovery was not made timely pursuant to the order dated 12.06.2001. In support of his submissions, learned counsel placed reliance on a decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Chandi Prasad Uniyaland Ors. vs. State of Uttrakhand & Ors.,(2012) 8 SCC 417 and prays for dismissal of writ petition.

5. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

6. Undisputedly, order dated 12.06.2001 was passed inflicting penalty of stopping two annual increments with cumulative effect and for the reasons best known to the respondents, the same was not given effect and was given effect vide order dated 15.01.2024 i.e. after a period of more than 23 years. The order dated 15.01.2024 (Annexure R/1) has been made basis for passing the impugned order dated 30.01.2024 (Annexure P/1) whereby pay of the petitioner has been re-fixed in the light of order of punishment after a period of more than 23 years.

3 W.P-5175-2024

7. Hon'ble Supreme Court has, in the case of State of Punjab and others Etc. vs. Rafiq Masih (White Washer) Etc., (2015) 4 SCC 334, held as under :-

"18. It is not possible to postulate all situations of hardship, which would govern employees on the issue of recovery, where payments have mistakenly been made by the employer, in excess of their entitlement. Be that as it may, based on the decisions referred to herein above, we may, as a ready reference, summaries the following few situations, wherein recoveries by the employers, would be impermissible in law:

(i) Recovery from employees belonging to Class-III and Class-IV service (or Group 'C and Group 'D' service).

(ii) Recovery from retired employees, or employees who are due to retire within one year, of the order of recovery.

(iii) Recovery from employees, when the excess payment has been made for a period in excess of five years, before the order of recovery is issued.

(iv) Recovery in cases where an employee has wrongfully been required to discharge duties of a higher post, and has been paid accordingly, even though he should have rightfully been required to work against an inferior post.

(v) In any other case, where the Court arrives at the conclusion, that recovery if made from the employee, would be iniquitous or harsh or arbitrary to such an extent, as would far outweigh the equitable balance of the employer's right to recover."

8. So far as the question of applicability of decision in the case of Chandi Prasad Uniyal (supra), is concerned, in this decision the question involved was to the effect as to whether an amount paid/received to/by an employee without authority of law, can be recovered or not, but in the present case no excess payment has been done to the petitioner and due to inaction on the part of the respondents re-fixation of pay was not done timely pursuant to the order of punishment dtd.12.06.2001, hence the judgement in the case of Chandi Prasad Uniyal (supra) does not provide any help to the respondents.

9. Recently also, Hon'ble Supreme Court has, in the case of Jogeswar Sahoo and others vs. the District Judge Cuttak and others, 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 396, considered its previous decision in the case of Thomas Daniel vs. State of Keral & Ors. (2022) SCC online SC 536 (in which all the previous decisions have been considered) and held as under :-

4 W.P-5175-2024

"11. In the case at hand, the appellants were working on the post of Stenographers when the subject illegal payment was made to them. It is not reflected in the record that such payment was made to the appellants on account of any fraud or misrepresentation by them. It seems, when the financial benefit was extended to the appellants by the District Judge, Cuttack, the same was subsequently not approved by the High Court which resulted in the subsequent order of recovery. It is also not in dispute that the payment was made in the year 2017 whereas the recovery was directed in the year 2023. However, in the meanwhile, the appellants have retired in the year 2020. It is also an admitted position that the appellants were not afforded any opportunity of hearing before issuing the order of recovery. The appellants having superannuated on a ministerial post of Stenographer were admittedly not holding any gazetted post as such applying the principle enunciated by this Court in the above quoted judgment, the recovery is found unsustainable."

10. As such the petitioner being class-III employee, who was due to retire in the month of June, 2024, no recovery could have been ordered from him on 15.01.2024 on the ground of re-fixation of pay, pursuant to the order of punishment dtd.12.06.2001.

11. Resultantly, impugned order dtd.30.01.2024 (Annexure P/1) being not sustainable, is hereby quashed and writ petition stands allowed with cost of Rs.5,000/- payable to the petitioner with the further direction to the respondents to refund the entire recovered amount to the petitioner within a period of 30 days along with interest @7% p.a. from the date of submission of certified copy of order passed by this Court today.

12. In case of non-payment within the aforesaid period, the respondents shall be liable to pay interest @12% p.a.

13. Misc. application(s), pending if any, shall stand closed.

(DWARKA DHISH BANSAL) JUDGE pb

PRASHANT BAGJILEWALE DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH, ou=HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH, 2.5.4.20=062bc13272373e2768c883468695ccafcb8f7bf9db7cbd37ad359bc82069bcdf, postalCode=482001, st=Madhya Pradesh, serialNumber=A08AE25ACEFF18C7A0F94698E1BC6A3CCF1DC9654549200EB1BC8E5DDF6349B0, cn=PRASHANT BAGJILEWALE Date: 2025.04.28 14:28:31 +05'30'