Madhya Pradesh High Court
Ramesh Kumar Mishra vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 20 January, 2025
Author: Vishal Mishra
Bench: Vishal Mishra
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:2642
1 WP-27566-2021
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. 27566 of 2021
RAMESH KUMAR MISHRA
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Ankesh Mishra - Advocate for petitioner.
Shri Swapnil Ganguly - Deputy Advocate General for respondent/State.
ORDER
This petition is filed seeking the following reliefs :-
"(i) This Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue a direction to
the respondents to make full payment of GPF of the petitioner with
arrears and interest.
(ii) This Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to direct the respondent
authorities to not make recovery of Rs.48,167/-from the petitioner's
GPF as it is mistakenly made against the petition.
(iii) Any other suitable writ, order or direction which this Hon'ble
Court may deem fit and proper under the facts and circumstances of the
case."
Learned State counsel has fairly submitted that the question involved
herein is covered by the decision of 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 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
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:2642
2 WP-27566-2021
this Court Jagdish Prasad Dubey (supra).
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 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
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:2642
3 WP-27566-2021
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 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% per annum from the date of
recovery till the date of payment.
With these observations, the petition is disposed off finally. No order
as to costs.
(VISHAL MISHRA)
JUDGE
L.Raj
