Madhya Pradesh High Court
Phoolchand Jain vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 18 March, 2025
Author: Vishal Mishra
Bench: Vishal Mishra
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:13450
1 WP-11156-2023
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. 11156 of 2023
PHOOLCHAND JAIN
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Shrikant Shrivastava - Advocate for the petitioner.
Shri Prabhanshu Shukla - Government Advocate for the
respondents/State.
ORDER
This petition has been filed seeking the following reliefs :
"(i) Call for the entire material record pertaining to the
instant controversy from the respondents for its kind
perusal.
(ii) This Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to quash and
set aside the impugned order dated 25.11.2016 (Annexure
P-1) and order of recovery and revised pay scale dated
08.05.2008 (Annexure P-3).
(iii) This Hon'ble Court may be pleased to direct the
respondents to refund the recovered amount of Rs.37,287/-
with interest till the date of realisation by issuance of an
appropriate writ or direction. Any other relief deemed fit be
also granted."
Learned 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
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:13450
2 WP-11156-2023
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 petition by directing the petitioner to file a
fresh representation in this regard within a period of 15 days from the date of
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:13450
3 WP-11156-2023
receipt of certified copy of this order to the respondents/concerning
authorities 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).
The impugned order dated 25.11.2016 (Annexure P-1) and order of
recovery and revised pay scale dated 08.05.2008 (Annexure P-3) are 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.
With these observations, the petition is disposed off finally. No costs.
(VISHAL MISHRA)
JUDGE
AM
