Madhya Pradesh High Court
Shravn Kumar Shroti vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 18 March, 2025
Author: Vishal Mishra
Bench: Vishal Mishra
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:13498
1 WP-16243-2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VISHAL MISHRA
ON THE 18th OF MARCH, 2025
WRIT PETITION No. 16243 of 2024
SHRAVN KUMAR SHROTI
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Sanjeev Kumar Singh - Advocate for petitioner.
Shri Mohan Sausarkar - Govt. Advocate for respondents/State.
ORDER
This petition has been filed seeking the following reliefs :
(i) It is therefore prayed that this Hon'ble Court may kindly be
pleased to issue writ in the nature of certiorari, quash the
impugned recovery order dated 11.11.2020 (Annexure P-1).
(ii) To issue writ, order or direction in the nature of
mandamus, thereby directing respondents to return the amount
recover from the petitioner with interest @ 18% per annum.
(iii) Any other relief/order/direction/prod which this Hon'ble
Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances
of the case, may also kindly be granted to the petitioner along
with cost of entire litigation.
2. It is the case of the petitioner that he is a retired employee and when he
was due to retire, an order dated 11.11.2020 has been issued by the
respondent concerned. The petitioner challenges the said order by which
recovery of Rs.87,955/- was ordered to be made from him. It is submitted
that the respondent-authority has already recovered the said amount from the
petitioner. Therefore, this petition.
3. The counsel appearing for the respondents-State has fairly submitted
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:13498
2 WP-16243-2024
that the question involved herein is squarely covered by the judgment passed
by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Punjab vs Rafiq Masih,
reported in (2015) 4 SCC 334 as well as 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)
as well as in the case of Rafiq Masih (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
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:13498
3 WP-16243-2024
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."
5. In the case of Rafiq Masih (supra), the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held
as under :
18. It is not possible to postulate all situations of hardship
which would govern employees on the issue of recovery,
where payments have mistakenly been made by the employer,
in excess of their entitlement. Be that as it may, based on the
decisions referred to hereinabove, we may, as a ready
reference, summarise the following few situations, wherein
recoveries by the employers, would be impermissible in law:
(i) Recovery from the employees belonging to Class III and
Class IV service (or Group C and Group D service).
(ii) Recovery from the retired employees, or the employees
who are due to retire within one year, of the order of recovery.
(iii) Recovery from the employees, when the excess payment
has been made for a period in excess of five years, before the
order of recovery is issued.
(iv) Recovery in cases where an employee has wrongfully
been required to discharge duties of a higher post, and has
been paid accordingly, even though he should have rightfully
been required to work against an inferior post.
(v) In any other case, where the court arrives at the conclusion,
that recovery if made from the employee, would be iniquitous
or harsh or arbitrary to such an extent, as would far outweigh
the equitable balance of the employer's right to recover.
6. 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) as well as in
the case of Rafiq Masih (supra).
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:13498
4 WP-16243-2024
7. The impugned order in terms of Annexure P/1 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.
8. With these observations, the petition is disposed of finally. No costs.
(VISHAL MISHRA)
JUDGE
VV
