Madhya Pradesh High Court
Smt. Durgesh Nandini Dahle vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 27 February, 2025
Author: Vishal Mishra
Bench: Vishal Mishra
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:9096
1 WP-28102-2019
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VISHAL MISHRA
ON THE 27th OF FEBRUARY, 2025
WRIT PETITION No. 28102 of 2019
SMT. DURGESH NANDINI DAHLE
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Siddharth Shukla - Advocate for petitioner.
Shri A.S. Baghel - Government Advocate for respondents/State.
ORDER
This petition is filed seeking the following reliefs:-
"The Hon'ble Court may be kindly be pleased to quash impugned order of
recovery Rs.90,013 dated 11.01.2019 (Annexure P/2) PAra 2 (Gha). And further
may kindly be direct to the respondents to release increment to the petitioner from
due i.e. 01.07.2006, in the interest of justice.
Further kindly be pleased to issue a writ of mandamus commanding the
respondents to refund the entire recovery of Rs.90,013/- with penal interest, in the
interest of justice. Including all the consequential benefits admissible under the law
relevant to the subjects.
Such other relief deemed fit and proper in the circumstances of the case including
costs of the petition may also be awarded."
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
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:9096
2 WP-28102-2019
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)
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
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:9096
3 WP-28102-2019
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).
The impugned order of recovery dated 11.01.2019 (Annexure P/2), is
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
L.Raj
