Madhya Pradesh High Court
Radheshyam vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 20 January, 2025
Author: Vijay Kumar Shukla
Bench: Vijay Kumar Shukla
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:1386
1 WP-9025-2014
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT INDORE
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VIJAY KUMAR SHUKLA
ON THE 20th OF JANUARY, 2025
WRIT PETITION No. 9025 of 2014
RADHESHYAM
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Brajesh Kumar Pandya, learned counsel for the petitioner.
Shri Mukesh Parwal, learned counsel for the respondent/state.
ORDER
The petitioner who is a retired employee of the Agriculture
Department has filed the present petition challenging the order dated
09.04.2014 passed by Sub-Divisional Officer (Agriculture) Indore, whereby,
the order has been passed to recover the excess payment made to the
petitioner.
Learned counsel for the petitioner argued that the petitioner is a retired
government servant and the recovery cannot be made after the retirement
regarding excess payment made by the respondent due to erroneous sanction
granted by the respondent.
The respondents have filed the reply and submitted that the petitioner
was erroneously granted the benefit of two advance increments and
therefore, recovery is being made.
The Full Bench of this Court at Principal Seat, Jabalpur in identical
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:1386
2 WP-9025-2014
matters has quashed such recovery orders by judgment dated 06.03.2024
passed in Writ Appeal No.815 of 2017 (State of Madhya Pradesh & Anr. vs.
Jagdish Prasad Dubey & Anr.) and connected writ petitions reported in 2024
SCC OnLine MP 1567, it has been held in paragraph No.35 as under:-
Answers to the questions referred
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
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:1386
3 WP-9025-2014
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 and Another vs.
Brojo Nath Ganguly and Another, reported in (1986) 3 SCC 136
unless the undertaking is given voluntarily."
In view of the aforesaid answer of the full Bench the recovery on the
basis of an undertaking/indemnity bond the recovery cannot be made on the
earlier fixation of pay. Apart from that the recovery of the excess amount
paid as salary cannot be recovered from a retired Government servant.
Admittedly in the present case procedure for recovery prescribed under Rule
65 and 66 of Chapter VIII of M.P. Civil Services Pension Rules, 1976 are
not followed.
Counsel for the petitioner submits that the the recovery from the
petitioner cannot be made as there is no misrepresentation or fraud
committed by the petitioner in fixation of pay. He has relied on the judgment
passed by the Apex Court in the case of Shyam Babu Verma Vs. Union of
india, 1994(2) SCC 521, Sahib Ram Vs. State of Haryana , 1995 Supp (1)
SCC 18, Chandi Prasad Uniyal Vs. State of Uttarakhand, (2012) 8 SCC 417
and Syed Abdul Kadir Vs. State of Bihar, (2009) 3 SCC 475 and Yogeshwar
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:1386
4 WP-9025-2014
Prasad Vs. National Institute of Education Planning, (2010) 14 SCC 323.
In view of the above, the impugned recovery order dated 09.04.2014 is
hereby quashed. The amount, if any, recovered from the petitioner be
refunded to him along with interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date
of recovery till the date of payment. Let the same be done within a period of
3 months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. The pay
fixation of the petitioner is however maintained.
The petition is accordingly allowed and disposed of.
(VIJAY KUMAR SHUKLA)
JUDGE
Sourabh
