Madhya Pradesh High Court
Ramalal vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 5 March, 2025
Author: Vishal Mishra
Bench: Vishal Mishra
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:10462
1 WP-8057-2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VISHAL MISHRA
ON THE 5 th OF MARCH, 2025
WRIT PETITION No. 8057 of 2025
RAMLAL
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Rajneesh Gupta - Advocate for petitioner.
Shri Prabhanshu Shukla - Government Advocate for State.
ORDER
This petition is filed seeking the following reliefs:-
"(i) Issue a writ in the nature of certiorari quashing/setting aside the impugned
order dated 22.11.2024 (Annexure P/3) passed by respondent no. 2, in the
interest of justice.
(ii) Issue a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents to refund
the recovered amount to the tune of Rs.1,52,725/- bifurcating it as Principal
amount of Rs.46,390/- end Rs.1,06,335/- as interest within stipulated period, in
the interest of justice.
(iii) Issue any other writ, order or direction as this Hon'ble Court deems fit and
proper 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 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
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:10462
2 WP-8057-2025
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
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:10462
3 WP-8057-2025
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 90 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 22.11.2024 (Annexure P/3) is
hereby quashed. Since the recovery has already been made in the matter,
therefore, the authorities are directed to complete the proceedings within a
period of 90 days. If the petitioner is not found entitled for any recovery, then
the recovered amount, 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 stands disposed off finally. No
order as to costs.
(VISHAL MISHRA)
JUDGE
THK
