Madhya Pradesh High Court
Smt. Anita Rani Jain (Deleted) Pawan ... vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 5 May, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:9934
1 WP-13206-2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT GWALIOR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE ASHISH SHROTI
ON THE 5 th OF MAY, 2025
WRIT PETITION No. 13206 of 2022
SMT. ANITA RANI JAIN (DELETED) PAWAN KUMAR BHAGAT
(AADHAR CARD NO 5567 4978 9455)
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Pratip Visoriya - Advocate for the petitioner.
Shri B.M.Patel- GA for the respondents/State.
ORDER
The petitioner has filed this writ petition praying for following reliefs:-
"i) That, the orders impugned dated 15/12/2021 contained in
Annexure P/1 and dated 20/12/2021 contained in Annexure P/2
passed by respondent no. 3 may kindly be quashed which has been
issued on the basis of objections raised by the respondent no. 4, in
the interest of justice.
ii) That, the respondents be further directed to release the gratuity
amount and family pension and pay the difference of family
pension alongwith interest @ 18% p.a., in the interest of justice.
iii) That, the respondents be further directed to pay interest @18%
per annum, over the delayed payment of GPF and GIS amount, in
the interest of justice.
iv) Cost of the petition be awarded or any other order or direction
deemed fit in the circumstances of the case be issued in the favour
of the petitioner."
2.This petition was initially filed by one Smt. Anita Jain whose
husband was working as Assistant Sub Inspect in the Police Department. She
has also expired during pendency of this petition on 31.05.2023 and is
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:9934
2 WP-13206-2022
substituted by present petitioner. Therefore, reference to petitioner in this
order would mean Smt. Anita Jain widow of Shri Devlal Ram Bhagat.
3.Shri Devlal Ram Bhagat expired on 31/7/2017 while in service. His
retiral dues were not paid to petitioner immediately after his death. It is the
case of the petitioner that the amount of GPF and GIS was paid to her in the
year 2019. She has further stated that even though she is the widow of
deceased-employee, the amount of family pension is not paid to her so far.
She has further submitted that the amount sought to be recovered from the
retiral dues of the petitioner's husband, vide Annexure P/1 & P/2, is also not
permissible. She has also submitted for direction for payment of gratuity
with interest. Thus, she has prayed for the aforesaid reliefs.
4. The respondents have filed the return, wherein, it is submitted that
since there is no nomination made by the deceased-employee, the family
pension could not be paid to the petitioner. Regarding recovery of excess
amount as directed vide Annexure P/1 & P/2, it is said that there was wrong
fixation of deceased-employee's salary in the year 1996 which led to
payment of excess amount to him and, therefore, the amount of Rs.50,204/-
was directed to be recovered as amount paid in excess and Rs.43,637/- was
directed to be recovered towards interest. He submitted that since the
deceased employee submitted an undertaking (Annexure R/3), he is bound to
refund the amount paid in excess. The return filed by respondents is silent so
far as the amount of gratuity and payment of interest on GIS & GPF is
concerned.
5. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:9934
3 WP-13206-2022
6. So far as the direction for recovery of surplus amount is concerned,
the issue is covered by the judgment of Full Bench of this Court in the case
of The State of Madhya Pradesh and others Vs. Jagdish Prasad Dubey, 2024
Supreme (MP) 144, wherein, the Full Bench passed the following
directions:-
"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."
7.Keeping in view the aforesaid dictum of Full Bench, it is seen that
there is no undertaking furnished by deceased employee. The document filed
as Annexure R/3 is not an undertaking but is only an option given by the
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:9934
4 WP-13206-2022
deceased-employee for purposes of pay fixation. Thus, the recovery directed
against the petitioner's husband is found to be unsustainable in view of Full
Bench judgment in the case of Jagdish Prasad Dubey (supra). Accordingly,
the order, dated 15/12/2021, (Annexure P/1) and dated 20/12/2021,
(Annexure P/2) are hereby quashed. The respondents are directed to refund
the amount of Rs.93,840/- to the petitioner alongwith interest @6% per
annum from the date of death of deceased-employee i.e. 31/7/2017 till actual
refund of the amount.
8. So far as the issue of payment of family pension to the petitioner i.e.
widow of deceased-employee is concerned, the reason assigned by the
respondent in the return that the nomination was not made by the employee,
is not acceptable. Under Rule 47(6) of the M.P. Civil Services (Pension)
Rules, 1976, in case of death of an employee, his widow is entitled to the
family pension till her death or re-marriage. Thus, no nomination is required
for the purpose of family pension. It is found from record that the widow has
also expired during pendency of this petition on 31/5/2023. Therefore, the
present petitioner is entitled to receive the amount of family pension payable
to late Smt. Anita Rani Jain for the period from 31/7/2017 till 31/5/2023. The
respondents are directed to make payment of arrears of family pension to the
present petitioner alongwith interest @6% per annum.
9. Another issue involved in this petition is with regard to payment of
interest on the amount of GPF and GIS which was paid to the widow of the
deceased-employee after a delay of about two years. There is no explanation
offered in the return as to why the petitioner was not paid aforesaid amounts
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:9934
5 WP-13206-2022
immediately upon death of employee. Accordingly, the petitioner is held
entitled to get interest on the said amount for the delay. The respondents are,
therefore, directed to pay interest on the amount of GPF and GIS @6% per
annum from 31/7/2017 till the date the amount was actually paid.
10.Lastly, the grievous of the petitioner is that the amount of gratuity
has not been paid to her so far. There is no reason assigned by respondents
for withholding the amount of gratuity. Therefore, the respondents are
directed to make payment of amount of gratuity to the petitioner alongwith
interest @6% per annum from 31/7/2017 till the date of actual payment.
However, it is made clear that if there is any impediment in making payment
of gratuity to the present petitioner, the same shall be communicated to him.
11.Let the aforesaid directions be complied with by the respondent No.
3 within a period of 90 days from the date of submission of certified copy of
this order. The petition is accordingly allowed and disposed of.
(ASHISH SHROTI)
JUDGE
JPS/-
