Madhya Pradesh High Court
Deepak Bhargava vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 1 March, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:4596
1 WP-7033-2018
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT GWALIOR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE ASHISH SHROTI
ON THE 1 st OF MARCH, 2025
WRIT PETITION No. 7033 of 2018
DEEPAK BHARGAVA
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Mr. Dharmendra Singh Raghuvanshi - Advocate for the petitioner.
Mr. Prabhat Pateriya - Govt. Advocate for the respondent - State.
ORDER
The petitioner has filed this writ petition challenging Annexure P/1
wherein, the recovery of Rs.2,42,287/- has been shown.
[2]. The petitioner was holding the post of City Superintendent of Police
and was posted in Lashkar, District Gwalior (M.P.). He stood retired from service
w.e.f. 31.07.2017. From pension cover-sheet dated, 30.01.2018 (Annexure P/1),
the petitioner came to know that the recovery of Rs.2,42,287/- has been effected
from his retiral dues.
[3]. Learned counsel for the petitioner challenges the impugned recovery
on following grounds;
Firstly, there is no order of recovery passed by the respondents;
Secondly, no opportunity of hearing was given to him before
effecting the impugned recovery; and
Thirdly, no reason has been assigned on what count, the excess
amount is paid to the petitioner.
[4]. Learned Government Advocate submits that the petitioner at the time
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:4596
2 WP-7033-2018
of superannuation has submitted an indemnity to the effect that he would refund
the amount if paid in excess to him.
[5]. The question involved in this case with respect to recovery of excess
amount from the petitioner, has been considered by the Full Bench judgment of
this Court in Writ Appeal No.815 of 2017 (State of M.P. and others vs
Jagdish Prasad Dubey). Vide judgment dated 06.03.2024, the Full Bench issued
following directions;
"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
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:4596
3 WP-7033-2018
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."
[6]. In view of the directions issued by the Full Bench of this Court in the
case of Jagdish Prasad Dubey (supra), this petition is disposed of with the
direction to the respondent-Authorities to reconsider the petitioner's case in view
of the directions issued by Full Bench and to take a final decision as to whether
any recovery can be made from him or not?
[7]. Petitioner be also given an opportunity of hearing before finalizing the
matter.
[8]. Let the entire exercise be concluded within a period ninety (90) days
from the date of submission of Certified Copy of this order.
[9]. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed off.
(ASHISH SHROTI)
JUDGE
vpn/-
