Madhya Pradesh High Court
Nand Kishroe Pal vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 20 January, 2025
Author: Vishal Mishra
Bench: Vishal Mishra
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:2629
1 WP-640-2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VISHAL MISHRA
ON THE 20th OF JANUARY, 2025
WRIT PETITION No. 640 of 2025
NAND KISHROE PAL
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Shishir Kumar Soni - Advocate for petitioner.
Shri Swapnil Ganguly - Deputy Advocate General for respondents/State.
ORDER
This petition is filed seeking the following reliefs :-
"(i) Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to summon the entire records
pertinent to subject matter of the petitioner from the respondent
department.
(ii) Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue a writ in the nature of
certiorari and set aside the impugned Orders dated 28.11.2024,
28.02.2009, 12.06.2020 and Undated order issued by respondent No. 1
and 3 (Annexure-P/1 to P/4), whereby the respondent authorities has
issued impugned recovery without disclosing any plausible rhyme and
reason and without affording any opportunity of hearing to the
petitioner.
(iii) Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue a writ in the nature
of mandamus and directed to the respondent/authorities to return the
entire recovered amount with 12% annual interest within time bound
stipulated period in the interest of justice.
(iv) Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue a writ in the nature
of mandamus and directed to the respondent-authorities to revise his
pension in accordance with law and issued a fresh PPO within
stipulated time period.
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:2629
2 WP-640-2025
(v) Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue a writ in the nature of
mandamus and directed to the respondent authorities to compensate to
the petitioner tune of Rs.2,00,000/- or which this Hon'ble Court may
deem fit and proper Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the fact
and circumstances of the case, in the interest of justice.
(vi) Any other writ, an order or direction, which this Hon'ble Court
deem fit and proper in facts and circumstances of the case may also
kindly be pleased in the interest of justice."
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the judgment passed by
the Full Bench of this Court in a reference Writ Appeal No.815 of 2017
(State of M.P. and others vs Jagdish Prasad Dubey) dated 06.03.2024 is fully
applicable to the case of the petitioner.
However, the State counsel has taken an objection with respect to
undertaking furnished by the petitioner at the time when the benefits were
extended to him i.e. way back in the year 2006.
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
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:2629
3 WP-640-2025
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 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 recovery order dated 28.11.2024 (Annexure P/1) is
hereby quashed. Since the recovery has already been made in the matter,
therefore, 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%
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:2629
4 WP-640-2025
per annum from the date of recovery till the date of payment.
It is made clear that as there was a liberty granted to the authorities to
consider the factum of undertaking submitted by the employees at the
relevant time, the same can be considered by the authorities while
considering the representation.
With these observations, the petition is disposed off finally. No order
as to costs.
(VISHAL MISHRA)
JUDGE
L.Raj
