Madhya Pradesh High Court
Mahesh Kumar Nema vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 9 January, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:946
1 WP-41942-2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VINAY SARAF
ON THE 9 th OF JANUARY, 2025
WRIT PETITION No. 41942 of 2024
MAHESH KUMAR NEMA
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Sudhanshu Singh Chouhan - Advocate for Petitioner.
Shri Mohan Sausarkar - Government Advocate for Respondents/State.
ORDER
The petitioner has assailed the order dated 31.09.2016 passed by the District
Pension Officer, District-Seoni, whereby the amount of Rs.144434/- has been
recovered from the retiral dues payable to the petitioner on the ground that the
amount of Rs.110417/- was paid in access to the petitioner from 01.01.2006 to
01.07.2016 and after adding an amount of interest Rs.34017/- total Rs.144434/-
were recovered from the petitioner.
Learned counsel for petitioner submits that the petitioner is a retired
employee who superannuated on 31.08.2016 from the post of Head Clerk and
disputed amount was paid to him erroneously from 2006 to 2016 on account of
wrong pay fixation, for which the petitioner was not responsible. The said amount
was not paid to the petitioner due to misrepresentation of the petitioner and at the
time of preparation of PPO, the same cannot be recovered from the retiral dues.
Learned counsel for petitioner relied on the judgment delivered by Apex
Court in the matter of State of Punjab & Ors. Vs. Rafiq Masih (White Washer) &
Ors. reported in (2015) 4 SCC 334, wherein the Apex Court has held that recovery
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:946
2 WP-41942-2024
from any employee of Class-III and Class-IV at the time of retirement or
thereafter, is not permissible.
The relevant para of the judgment delivered by the Apex Court in the matter
of Rafiq Masih (supra) reads 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 been mistakenly
been made by the employer, in excess of their entitlement. Be that as it may, based on
the decisions referred to hereinabove, we may, as a ready reference, summarize the
following few situations, wherein recoveries by the employers, would be
impermissible in law.
"(i) Recovery from the employees belonging to Class III and Class IV service
or Group C and Group D service.
(ii) Recovery from the retired employees or the employees who are due to
retire within one year of the order of recovery.
(iii) Recovery from the employees, when the excess payment has been made
for a period in excess of five years before the order of recovery is issued.
(iv) In any 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."
Learned counsel for petitioner prays for quashment of order dated
31.09.2016.
Per contra, learned Government Advocate appearing on advance copy
opposed the petition on the ground that the amount was paid to the petitioner from
2006 to 2016 erroneously and when the mistake came to the knowledge of the
authorities, the amount was duly recovered along with interest. He further submits
that an amount was recovered in the year 2017 and present petition is preferred
after a period of seven years therefore, the petitioner is not entitled for interest.
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:946
3 WP-41942-2024
Considering the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the parties, it is
apparent that the petitioner is superannuated on 31.08.2016 from the post of Head
Clerk and at the time of preparation of PPO it came to the knowledge of the
authorities that some amount has been paid to the petitioner erroneously due to
wrong pay fixation. It is also in dispute that Rs.144434/- have already been
recovered from the petitioner. There is no allegation against the petitioner that due
to misrepresentation access amount was paid to him. The petitioner belongs to
Class-III employee and consequently, in view of law laid by the Apex Court in the
matter of Rafiq Masih (supra) , the amount could not be recovered from the
petitioner.
Consequently, the petition is allowed.
Respondents are directed to repay the amount Rs.144434/- to the petitioner
within a period of 60 days from the date of submission of certified copy of this
order. As the petitioner has not approached promptly, the petitioner will not be
entitled for interest upon the recovered amount however, it is directed that if the
amount is not repaid to the petitioner within 60 days from the date of submission
of certified copy, the respondents will be liable to pay interest to the petitioner @
6% per annum from the date of recovery to date of payment.
No order as to costs.
(VINAY SARAF)
JUDGE
Shub
