Madhya Pradesh High Court
Smt. Anjali Rohira vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 7 January, 2025
Author: Vishal Mishra
Bench: Vishal Mishra
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:532
1 WP-23919-2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VISHAL MISHRA
ON THE 7 th OF JANUARY, 2025
WRIT PETITION No. 23919 of 2023
SMT. ANJALI ROHIRA
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Kabeer Paul - Advocate appearing through Video Conferencing with
Shri Aradhya Shrivastava - Advocate for the petitioner.
Shri Gajendra Parashar - Panel Lawyer for the respondents/State.
ORDER
The present petition has been filed seeking the following reliefs:
"i. Summon the entire relevant record from the possession
of the official respondents.
ii. Issue a writ of certiorari and quash the impugned letter
dt. 11.03.2022 (Annexure P/4) while holding the same as
arbitrary, unjust and erroneous in the eyes of law and
further direct the refund of any amount, if already
recovered.
iii. Any other relief, which this Honourable Court deems
appropriate and just, may also be granted in the interest of
justice.
iv. Award cost of the litigation in favour of the petitioner."
It is the case of the petitioner that the petitioner is the widow of Late
Shri S.C.Rohira who was working as A.S.I. in the office of the respondent
No.4. He died during service period on 04.10.2017. After the death of the
husband of the petitioner, the respondent No.4 passed an order in favour of
the petitioner to release the death-cum-retiral dues of her husband vide order
dated 05.05.2018. Thereafter, the respondent No.4 issued a recovery letter
dated 11.03.2022 whereby the recovery of Rs.12,76,792/- was sought from
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:532
2 WP-23919-2023
the petitioner. Being aggrieved by the said order of recovery dated
11.03.2022, the petitioner approached this Hon'ble Court by filing a writ
petition being Writ Petition No.9262 of 2022. The said writ petition was
dismissed as withdrawn with a liberty to file a fresh vide order dated
24.08.2023. Hence, this 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)
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
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:532
3 WP-23919-2023
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 45 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 11.03.2022 (Annexure P/4) is
hereby quashed. In case, any recovery is made in the matter, the authorities
are directed to complete the proceedings within a period of 45 days. If the
petitioner is not found entitled for any recovery, then the recovered amount,
if any, be refunded to the petitioner along with interest @ 6% per annum
from the date of recovery till the date of payment.
With these observations, the petition is disposed off finally. No order
as to costs.
(VISHAL MISHRA)
JUDGE
AM
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:532
4 WP-23919-2023
