Madhya Pradesh High Court
Somwati Tiwari vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 23 January, 2025
Author: Vishal Mishra
Bench: Vishal Mishra
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:3469
1 WP-1811-2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VISHAL MISHRA
ON THE 23 rd OF JANUARY, 2025
WRIT PETITION No. 1811 of 2025
SOMWATI TIWARI
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Ratnakar Prasad Mishra - Advocate for the petitioner.
Shri Suyash Thakur - GA for the respondents /State.
ORDER
The present petition has been filed seeking the following reliefs:
"(A) Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue writ in the
nature of mandamus and direct respondents to consider and
take decision over the claim of 4th Time Pay Scale and
returning the amount which was illegally recovered to the
petitioner or allow petitioner to prefer fresh representation, as
the case may be and direct to the respondents to consider and
decide the same by way of passing speaking order within
appropriate time as the Hon'ble Court may deem proper, in
the interest of justice.
(B) Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to direct
respondents to revise the salary and other monetary benefits
taking into account the whole service period of the petitioner
with regard to the 4th Time Pay Scale and grant him arrears
along with all other consequential benefits.
(C) To grant any other relief or orders which this Hon'ble
Court deems fit and proper under facts and circumstances of
the case, in the interest of justice. That, may kindly pleased
to quash the impugned order Annexure-P/2 in the interest of
justice."
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
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:3469
2 WP-1811-2025
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 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).
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:3469
3 WP-1811-2025
As far as the recovery is concerned, 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, 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 her along with interest @ 6% per annum from the
date of recovery till the date of payment.
As far as the claim of the petitioner for grant of 4th Time Pay Scale is
concerned, as the petitioner has already made a representation in this regard to the
authorities, therefore, the same is directed to be decided by the competent
authorities within a period of 90 days from the date of receipt of certified copy of
this order.
With these observations, the petition is disposed of finally. No order as to
costs.
(VISHAL MISHRA)
JUDGE
JP
