Madhya Pradesh High Court
Smt. Pramila Choubey vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 27 June, 2025
Author: Vivek Agarwal
Bench: Vivek Agarwal
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:28109
1 RP-572-2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VIVEK AGARWAL
&
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VIVEK JAIN
ON THE 27th OF JUNE, 2025
REVIEW PETITION No. 572 of 2025
SMT. PRAMILA CHOUBEY
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Sanjay Ram Tamrakar - Senior Advocate assisted by Shri Ankit
Chopra - Advocate for the petitioner.
Shri Yash Soni - Deputy Advocate General for the State.
ORDER
Per: Justice Vivek Agarwal
This review petition is filed seeking review of the order dated
28.03.2025 passed by the Division Bench in Writ Appeal No.2211/2023
which was disposed off in view of the detail order passed in Writ Appeal
No.1188/2024.
2. It is submitted that State had filed Writ Appeal No.1188/2024 being
aggrieved of the orders of the Writ Court dated 12.10.2023 in WP
No.13347/2020 whereby it was directed by learned single Judge that
recovery of principal amount in regard to excess payment made to the
petitioner prior to 25.05.2009 cannot be recovered and accordingly, recovery
of excess payment made prior to 25.05.2009 was quashed. Respondents
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:28109
2 RP-572-2025
were directed to recalculate the excess payment made after 25.05.2009 and
the same can be recovered.
3. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that Writ Appeals filed by
both the State as well as the petitioner/appellant were dismissed. The
appellant's contention is that learned single Judge erred in not appreciating
the facts of the case in correct perspective. It is submitted that since recovery
which is proposed against the petitioner is in regard to erroneous fixation of
increment on grant of Time Scale of Pay as can be seen from Annexure R-1
and not in regard to pay fixation in pursuance of Sixth Pay Commission
Recommendations, and, therefore, undertaking furnished vide Annexure R-3
which deals with revised pay-scale under the Pay Revision Rules, 2009, will
not be applicable to the case of the petitioner/appellant. It is further
submitted that there is no undertaking given by the petitioner in regard to
Time Scale of Pay which became due in 2007 prior to adoption of Sixth Pay
Commission recommendations by virtue of MP Pay Revision Rules, 2009.
Therefore, said undertaking being not applicable to the facts and
circumstances of the case in the light of the judgment of the Supreme Court
in the case of High Court of Punjab and Haryana and Others v. Jagdev
Singh, (2016) 14 SCC 267 wherein in paragraph 10 (i) it is provided that
recovery from an employee belonging to Class III and Class IV service (for
Group 'C' and 'D' service) is impermissible. After saying so in paragraph 10,
it is held in paragraph 11 that as far as recovery from retired employees or
employees who are due to retire within one year, principle of no recovery
will not be applicable where officers to whom the payment was made in the
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:28109
3 RP-572-2025
first instance was clearly placed on notice that any payment found to have
been made in excess will be required to be refunded. Thus, it is submitted
that when the Pay Fixation is disconnected with the undertaking as contained
in Annexure R-3, the petitioner's case will be squarely covered by State of
Punjab and Others v. Rafiq Masih (Whitewasher) and Others, (2015) 4 SCC
334 and paragraph 10 (i) of the decision in the case of Jagdev Singh (supra) .
This aspect has escaped notice of Division Bench and, therefore, review is
maintainable.
4. Shri Yash Soni, learned Deputy Advocate General, in his turn,
submits that since there is an undertaking, recovery is just and correct in
terms of the stipulations contained in paragraph 11 of the decision of the
Supreme Court in the case of Jagdev Singh (supra) .
5. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and going through the
record, it is evident that the Supreme Court in the case of Rafiq Masih
(supra) has clearly held that no recovery is permissible from class III and
Class IV employee. Thereafter in the case of Jagdev Singh (supra), there is
micro analysis of judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Rafiq Masih
(supra) thereafter it is held that if there is an undertaking given by an
employee in regard to recovery being permitted, if any payment is found to
be made in excess then under such facts and circumstances what is to be seen
is that whether undertaking is connected with the cause of action for
recovery. If they are connected then, recovery can be made irrespective of
status of an employee, but if the undertaking is disjointed to the cause of
action, then no recovery can be made.
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:28109
4 RP-572-2025
6. Accordingly, to the above extent, we review the order dated
28.03.2025 passed in Writ Appeal No.2211/2023. It is directed that since the
undertaking contained in Annexure R-3 is not connected with the cause of
recovery as mentioned in Annexure R-1 which is on account of erroneous
fixation of increment upon grant of Time Scale of Pay on 19.07.2007, said
recovery is not sustainable in the eyes of law, and therefore, the same is
hereby quashed.
7. The Review Petition is allowed and disposed of. The parties shall
bear their own costs.
(VIVEK AGARWAL) (VIVEK JAIN)
JUDGE JUDGE
ks
