Madhya Pradesh High Court
Niranjan Bharadwaj vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 21 March, 2025
Author: Vivek Rusia
Bench: Vivek Rusia
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:7488
1 WP-2927-2017
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT INDORE
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VIVEK RUSIA
ON THE 21st OF MARCH, 2025
WRIT PETITION No. 2927 of 2017
NIRANJAN BHARADWAJ
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Kanishq Shrivastava on behalf of Shri Lokesh Kumar Bhatnagar -
Advocate for the petitioner.
Shri Dr. Amit Bhatia - G.A. for respondent/State.
ORDER
The present petition has been filed by the petitioner under Article 226
of the Constitution of India seeking the following relief:-
(a) The impugned order Annexure P/1 dated 27.03.2017, by which
the respondents are recovering the amount of Rs. 53,914/- from
the petitioner may kindly be quashed.
(b) The audit objection taken by the respondent No.3 by Annexure
P/9 may kindly be quashed and respondents may kindly be
directed to grant benefit of time scale pay as per the circular
Annexure P/10 by considering the first date of appointment as
01.10.1985.
(c) The respondents may kindly be directed to finalize the pension
case of the petitioner and to issue the pension payment order
immediately as per the order Annexure P/5 by which the benefit of
time scale pay has been granted to the petitioner on completion of
20 years of service with effect from 01.10.2005.
(d) Any other relief which this Hon'ble Court deems fit may kindly
be granted in favor of the petitioner.
02. Counsel for the petitioner submits that in the instant petition,
petitioner is aggrieved by order dated 27.03.2017 whereby the petitioner has
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:7488
2 WP-2927-2017
been directed to deposit the amount of Rs.53,914/-. The said amount is the
principal amount of recovery.
03. The petitioner was initially appointed on the post of Forest Guard
on 1.10.1985 and his appointment order has been issued on 09.10.1985. In
the year 1989, after completion of four years of services, the petitioner was
sent on training by the department and he has successfully completed the
training. Thereafter, the petitioner performed his duties sincerely and
diligently and in the year 2010 the petitioner was given out of turn promotion
on the post of Forest Guard. After completion of 20 years from the date of
first appointment, the time scale pay has been given to the petitioner per the
scheme, therefore, it cannot be said that the benefit of time scale pay has
wrongly been given to the petitioner. The petitioner was retired on
30.06.2017. Thereafter, the respondents have issued the impugned order
directing the petitioner to deposit the amount of Rs.53,914/- because of
wrong pay fixation done by the respondents
04. So far as the issue of recovery after retirement is concerned, the
same is no more res integra in view of the judgment delivered by the Apex
Court in the case of State of Punjab & Others v/s Rafiq Masih (White
Washer) reported in (2015) 4 SCC 334 as well as judgment delivered by the
Full Bench of this Court in the case of The State of Madhya Pradesh &
Others v/s Jagdish Prasad Singh (Writ Appeal No.815 of 2017).
05. The Apex Court in the case of Rafiq Masih (supra) has held thus:-
''(i) Recovery from employees belonging to Class-III and
Class-IV service (or Group 'C' and Group 'D' service).
(ii) Recovery from retired employees, or employees who are
due to retire within one year, of the order of recovery.
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:7488
3 WP-2927-2017
(iii) Recovery from 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.''
06. The Full Bench of this Court in the case of Jagdish Prasad Singh
(supra) has held as under:-
"Answers to the questions referred
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
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:7488
4 WP-2927-2017
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 and Another vs. Brojo Nath
Ganguly and Another, reported in (1986) 3 SCC 136
unless the undertaking is given voluntarily."
07. In view of the aforesaid judicial pronouncement by the Apex Court
as well as Full Bench of this Court, the impugned order of recovery dated
27.03.2017 is not sustainable and hereby quashed. The amount, if any,
recovered from the petitioner be paid to him within a period of 60 days from
the date of this order.
08. With the aforesaid, Writ Petition stands allowed.
(VIVEK RUSIA)
JUDGE
Vatan
