Madhya Pradesh High Court
Mrs. Achamma Mathew vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 17 March, 2025
Author: Vishal Mishra
Bench: Vishal Mishra
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:13130
1 WP-7647-2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VISHAL MISHRA
ON THE 17th OF MARCH, 2025
WRIT PETITION No. 7647 of 2021
MRS. ACHAMMA MATHEW
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Ms. Ritika Chouhan - Advocate for petitioner.
Mr. V.S. Choudhary - Govt. Advocate for respondents/State.
ORDER
This petition has been filed seeking the following reliefs :
(i) issue a writ in the nature of certiorari quashing the
order of recovery of Rs.3,77,697/- issued vide order
dated 10.08.2020 by holding the same as arbitrary,
illegal and void.
(ii) This Hon'ble Court may be pleased to direct the
respondents to restore the pension of the petitioner with
all consequential benefits along with the arrears of
pension.
(iii) To direct the respondents to pay gratuity along with
interest.
(iv) To grant any other relief as the Hon'ble Court
deems fit to the petitioner, looking to the facts and
circumstances of the case in the interest of justice.
2. It is the case of the petitioner that she stood retired from service w.e.f.
30.06.2017 (Annexure P/2) on attaining the age of superannuation. After
retirement, an order dated 10.08.2020 has been issued by respondent
concerned. The petitioner challenges the said order by which recovery of
Rs.3,77,697/- (Annexure P/3) was ordered to be made from her retrial
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:13130
2 WP-7647-2021
claims.
3. At the outset, the counsel appearing for respondents-State has fairly
submitted that the question involved herein is squarely covered by the
decision of the 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 fresh 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 in Jagdish
Prasad Dubey (supra).
4. 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
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:13130
3 WP-7647-2021
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."
5. In view whereof, and on hearing the contentions, this Court deems it
appropriate to dispose off the petition by directing the petitioner to file a
fresh representation in this regard within a period of 15 days from the date of
receipt of certified copy of this order to the respondents/concerning authority
who, in turn, is directed to decide the same within a period of 90 days in the
light of Full Bench decision in Jagdish Prasad Dubey (supra).
6. The impugned order in terms of Annexure P/3 is hereby quashed. In
case any recovery is made in the matter, the authorities are directed to
complete the proceedings within a period of 90 days from today. 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.
7. With these observations, the petition is disposed off finally. No costs.
(VISHAL MISHRA)
JUDGE
VV
