Madhya Pradesh High Court
Jitendra Kumar Dwivedi vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 15 January, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:1474
1 WP-40804-2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VINAY SARAF
ON THE 15th OF JANUARY, 2025
WRIT PETITION No. 40804 of 2024
JITENDRA KUMAR DWIVEDI
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Alok Kumar Dwivedi - Advocate for the petitioner.
Shri Praveen Namdeo - Government Advocate for the
respondents/State.
ORDER
The grievance of the petitioner is that, at the time of extending the
retiral benefit to the petitoner, Rs.90,743/- have already been recovered from
the petitioner on the ground of wrong pay fixation during the service period.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner was not
responsible for the said erroneous payment made to him. The petitioner has
been superannuated on 31.08.2023 from the post of Assistant Grade-III. He
submits that recovery made from the petitioner is bad in law and contrary to
the law laid down by the Apex Court in the matter of State of Punjab and
others vs. Rafiq Masih, (2015) 4 SCC 334, wherein the Apex Court has held
as under:-
"18. It is not possible to postulate all situations of hardship
which would govern employees on the issue of recovery, where
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:1474
2 WP-40804-2024
payments have 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, summarise
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) 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."
Learned counsel for the petitioner prays for issuance of direction to
refund the amount along with interest, which has already been recovered
from the petitioner.
Per contra, learned Government Advocate appearing on behalf of State
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:1474
3 WP-40804-2024
submits that at the time of preparation of PPO, this fact came to the
knowledge that due to wrong pay fixation, additional amount was paid to the
petitioner erroneously and therefore, the said amount was deducted/recovered
from the payable retiral dues of the petitioner. He further submits that the
amount has been deducted in accordance with applicable rules.
Considering the fact that the Apex Court has observed that recovery
from a retired Class-III employee cannot be initiated on the ground that some
excess amount was paid to him during his employment.
It is not the case of respondent that the excess amount was paid to the
petitioner due to his misrepresentation. The petitioner who is a Class-III
employee must have been used the amount, which was paid to him
erroneously. Therefore, the same cannot be recovered from the retiral dues.
In view of the judgment delivered by the Apex Court in the matter of
Rafiq Masih (supra), the present petition is allowed. Respondents are
directed to refund the amount of Rs.90,743/- along with interest @ 6% per
annum from the date of recovery till payment, within a period of 90 days
from today.
With the aforesaid, present petition is disposed of.
(VINAY SARAF)
JUDGE
irfan
