Madhya Pradesh High Court
Vijendra Kumar Shukla vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 22 January, 2025
Author: Vishal Mishra
Bench: Vishal Mishra
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:3102
1 WP-1397-2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VISHAL MISHRA
ON THE 22nd OF JANUARY, 2025
WRIT PETITION No. 1397 of 2025
VIJENDRA KUMAR SHUKLA
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri R.G. Rai - Advocate for the petitioner.
Shri Darshan Soni - Government Advocate for the respondents/State.
ORDER
This petition has been filed challenging the order of recovery after
retirement of the petitioner.
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
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
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:3102
2 WP-1397-2025
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
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 order of recovery dated 11/11/2024 (Annexure P/2) 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,
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:3102
3 WP-1397-2025
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
Shbhnkr
