Madhya Pradesh High Court
Radheshyam Yadav vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 30 July, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:35117
1 WP-11870-2020
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VIVEK JAIN
ON THE 30th OF JULY, 2025
WRIT PETITION No. 11870 of 2020
RADHESHYAM YADAV
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Sachindra Kumar Raghuvanshi - Advocate for the Petitioner.
Shri V.P. Tiwari - Government Advocate for the Respondent/State.
ORDER
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that by identical Orders,
action was taken against two employees vide Order dated 03.06.2020 which
were different Orders but passed on the same date. In the case of other
employee namely Brij Bhushan Sharma, the petition has already been
allowed by this Court in Writ Petition No.11104/2020 in the following
manner:-
"The petitioner has filed this petition under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India assailing the order dated 03.06.2020 passed by
respondent No.5, by which the pension of the petitioner has been fixed at
the rate of Rs.4,454/-. The order reveals that the pension, which was being
paid to the petitioner, has been reduced only because some recovery is to
be made as petitioner has been paid excess amount in the head of gratuity
after retirement.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the order does not
reveal as to why recovery is being done and what type of excess payment
has been made to the petitioner. Even before passing such an order, no
notice was issued to the petitioner so as to apprise him about the proposed
recovery. The petitioner was working on the post of Amin. He retired
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:35117
2 WP-11870-2020
from service in the year 2015 and the order under challenge is dated
03.06.2020.
3. Reply has been filed by the respondent. Nothing specific has
been averred in the same and it is also not justified as to how this Order of
reducing pension and recovery of amount paid in excess in the head of
gratuity that too after almost five years from the date of retirement is
sustainable.
4. I have considered the submissions made by learned counsel for
the parties and perused the record.
5. In my opinion, this recovery in any manner cannot be given seal
of approval because recovery after retirement that too from a class-III
employee without giving any opportunity of hearing is illegal. The order
is also cryptic not assigning specific reason in itself, therefore, the same is
not sustainable. Reply is also not specific justifying the order passed by
the authority. In such circumstances, no recovery in such a manner can be
made from the petitioner.
6. It is also a settled principle of law that at the time or retirement,
no recovery can be made from an employee. The Full Bench in the case of
State of M.P. and others Vs. Jagdish Prasad Dubey reported in ILR 2024
M.P.575 (FB) has held as under:
"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
proceedings 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
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:35117
3 WP-11870-2020
Transport Corporation Limited (supra) unless the undertaking
is given volunatarily."
7. In view of the aforesaid and the law laid down by the Full Bench
of this Court in the case referred above, petition is allowed.
8. The impugned order dated 03.06.2020 passed by respondent
No.5 is hereby set aside directing the respondents to restore the pension,
which was determined and was being paid to the petitioner after his
retirement. If any amount is recovered, the same be also refunded to the
petitioner within a period of three months at the rate of 8% per annum till
the date of actual payment is made."
2. Learned counsel for the State though vehemently opposes the
petition but is not in a position to point out any distinguishing feature from
the said case.
3. Consequently, the petition is allowed in similar terms and the
impugned Order dated 30.06.2020 is set aside directing the respondents to
restore the pension which was earlier determined and paid to the petitioner
after the retirement.
4. If any amount is recovered, the same be refunded to the petitioner
within three months, failing which it shall carry interest @ 6% per annum
from the date of this Order.
5. With the aforesaid directions, the petition is disposed off.
(VIVEK JAIN)
JUDGE
veni
