Madhya Pradesh High Court
Shehbaz Beg Mirza vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 10 February, 2025
Author: Vishal Mishra
Bench: Vishal Mishra
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:6364
1 WP-28240-2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VISHAL MISHRA
ON THE 10th OF FEBRUARY, 2025
WRIT PETITION No. 28240 of 2021
SHEHBAZ BEG MIRZA
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri A.S. Raizada - Advocate for petitioner.
Shri Deepak Tiwari - Panel Lawyer for respondents/State.
ORDER
This petition has been filed seeking the following reliefs :
(i) To quash Annexure P/2 and P/4.
(ii) To direct the respondents to make payment amount
which is illegally withheld alongwith interest.
(iii) To pass any other order or orders and direction or
directions which this Hon'ble Court may deem just and
proper in the facts andcircumstances of the case.
(iv) To award cost of this petition.
2. It is the case of the petitioner that she stood retired from service w.e.f.
31.01.2018 on attaining the age of superannuation. After her retirement,
order dated 29.05.2018 (Annexure P/2) and order dated 02.11.2018
(Annexure P/4) have been issued. The petitioner challenges these orders by
which recovery of Rs.2,25,644/- was ordered to be made from her retrial
claims.
3. At the outset, the counsel appearing for respondents-State has fairly
submitted that the question involved herein is squarely covered by the
decision of the Full Bench of this Court passed in a reference : Writ Appeal
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:6364
2 WP-28240-2021
No.815 of 2017 (State of M.P. and others vs Jagdish Prasad Dubey) dated
06.03.2024 and if a fresh 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 in Jagdish
Prasad Dubey (supra).
4. A Full Bench of this Court in the case of Jagdish Prasad Dubey (supra)
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
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:6364
3 WP-28240-2021
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."
5. In view whereof, and on hearing the contentions, this Court deems it
appropriate to dispose off the petition by directing the petitioner to file a
fresh representation in this regard within a period of 15 days from the date of
receipt of certified copy of this order to the respondents/concerning authority
who, in turn, is directed to decide the same within a period of 90 days in the
light of Full Bench decision in Jagdish Prasad Dubey (supra).
6. The impugned orders in terms of Annexure P/2 and P4 are hereby
quashed. In case any recovery is made in the matter, the authorities are
directed to complete the proceedings within a period of 90 days from today.
If the petitioner is not found entitled for any recovery, then the recovered
amount, if any, be refunded to her along with interest @ 6% per annum from
the date of recovery till the date of payment.
7. With these observations, the petition is disposed off finally. No costs.
(VISHAL MISHRA)
JUDGE
VV
