Madhya Pradesh High Court
Narayen Dinkar vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 25 March, 2025
Author: Vivek Rusia
Bench: Vivek Rusia
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:7952
1 WP-10186-2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT INDORE
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VIVEK RUSIA
ON THE 25 th OF MARCH, 2025
WRIT PETITION No. 10186 of 2025
NARAYEN DINKAR
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Shashank Patwari - Advocate for the petitioner.
Shri Amit Bhatia - Govt. Advocate for the respondent / State.
ORDER
Petitioner has filed the present petition challenging the order dated
13.02.2025, whereby the respondent No.5 has directed petitioner to deposit the
amount of Rs.27,157.00 + interest of Rs.45,904.00 i.e. total amount of
Rs.73,061.00 failing which the said amount shall be recovered from the pension
and he shall be responsible for delay in settlement of the pension. As per the
contents of the order dated 13.02.2025, this amount has been recovered due to
wrong fixation of pay from 01.01.2006 to 30.06.2013. The petitioner retired as a
Class-III employee.
02. 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).
03. The Apex Court in the case of Rafiq Masih (supra) has held thus:-
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:7952
2 WP-10186-2025
''(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.
(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.''
04. 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 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."
05. 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 13.02.2025
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:7952
3 WP-10186-2025
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 production of
certified copy of this order.
06. With the aforesaid, Writ Petition stands allowed.
(VIVEK RUSIA)
JUDGE
Divyansh
