Madhya Pradesh High Court
Ram Bahadur Sharma vs State Of Madhya Pradesh on 16 January, 2025
Author: Vishal Mishra
Bench: Vishal Mishra
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:1999
1 WP-27123-2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VISHAL MISHRA
ON THE 16th OF JANUARY, 2025
WRIT PETITION No. 27123 of 2023
RAM BAHADUR SHARMA
Versus
STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Ram Naresh Vishwakarma - Advocate for petitioner.
Shri A.S. Baghel - Govt. Advocate for respondents/State.
ORDER
This petition has been filed seeking the following reliefs :
(i) The Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue
writ in the nature of certiorari to quash the impugned
order of recovery dated 23.03.2021 (Annexure P/3) and
all consequences so far it relates to petitioner and
respondent no.5 in the interest of justice;
(ii) The Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue
writ in the nature of Mandamus to direct to call the
entire records relating to the case of the petitioner.
(iii) Any other suitable relief deem fit under the
circumstances of the case may also kindly be granted to
gather with cost of the petition.
2. It is the case of the petitioner that he stood retired from the post of
Peon w.e.f. 31.03.2020 on attaining the age of superannuation. After
retirement, an order dated 23.03.2021 has been issued by the respondent
No.5. The petitioner challenges the said order by which recovery of
Rs.2,82,210/- (Annexure P/3) was ordered to be made from the gratuity
payable to him. It is submitted that the aforesaid recovery has been ordered
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:1999
2 WP-27123-2023
on the ground of wrong fixation of pay. The pay scale was granted to the
petitioner by the respondents and there was no misrepresentation or any
cheating or fraud played by the petitioner in fixation of the pay.
3. State counsel, at the outset, 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 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
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:1999
3 WP-27123-2023
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."
5. In view whereof, and on hearing the contentions, this Court deems it
appropriate to dispose off the petition by directing 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 45 days in the
light of Full Bench decision in Jagdish Prasad Dubey (supra).
6. The impugned order of recovery dated 23.03.2021 (Annexure P/3) 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 him 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
