Recovery from employees belonging to Class-III and Class-IV service impermissible as per the Constitution of India and relevant judgments.

JUDGMENT :

Vishal Mishra, J.

With the consent of the learned counsel for the parties the matter is finally heard.

1. Being aggrieved by the action on the part of the respondents, whereby the recovery of excess amount paid to the petitioner is directed to be made without affording any opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. The action of the respondents is arbitrary and without jurisdiction and contrary to Article 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India and is also violative of the judgment passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Punjab Vs. Rafiq Masih (white washers) 2015 (4) SCC 334.

2. It is submitted that the petitioner was appointed on the post of Constable in the respondent-department in the year 1979. Thereafter he was promoted to Head Constable in the year 1986 and thereafter as APC in the year 2004 and thereafter as a Platoon Commander in the year 2011 and finally he was promoted to the post of Inspector in the year 2015. The respondent no. 3 has issued a order of recovery from the petitioner, but no notice of recovery or any opportunity of hearing was granted to him and money has been recovered from the post retiral benefits of the petitioner. After completing the services, the petitioner stood retired on 30.4.2017 and the respondents have made recovery of excess amount from the post retiral dues of the petitioner. The aforesaid is reflected from the pension payment order of the petitioner. It is argued that the Finance Department of Government of M.P. has issued a circular on 31.3.2016 not to recover any amount from Class III and Class IV employees. The aforesaid circular is Annexure P/3 in the petition.

3. It is submitted that in pursuance to the aforesaid circular which was lays upon the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Rafiq Masih (supra) the authorities could not have made any recovery from the petitioner. In such circumstances the order impugned is per se illegal and has prayed for quashment of the impugned order with a further direction to the authorities to refund the amount and to repay the amount which has been recovered from the petitioner along with interest.

4. Per contra counsel appearing for the State has opposed the contents of the petitioner alleging therein that the recovery has been made from the petitioner in pursuance to the excess amount paid to the petitioner at the time of grant of krammonati as subsequently the petitioner was not found entitled for grant of krammonati. The recovery is further made in pursuance to an undertaking given by the petitioner before the authorities at the time of fixation of pay dated 8.3.2009, wherein the petitioner has categorically undertaken that if any excess amount is being paid to him the same will be recovered or he will refund the same to the authorities, but despite of the same he has not complied with the aforesaid undertaking, therefore, the authorities have recovered the amount from the post retiral benefits of the petitioner. It is pointed out that recovery of Rs. 26271/- was made from the salary of the petitioner and the remaining amount was being recovered from the other post retiral benefits amounting to Rs. 1,79,313/-. He has further contended that the case of Rafiq Masih (supra) is not applicable in the facts and circumstances of the case as relevant provisions of the Pension Rules of Madhya Pradesh have not been considered. He has relied upon the judgment passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of High Court of Punjab and Haryana Vs. Jagdev Singh, AIR 2016 SC 3523 which was considered by the Division Bench of this Court in W.A. No. 340/2017 in the case of State of Madhya Pradesh and others Vs. Laxman Prasad Sharma and considering the undertaking given by the petitioner the recovery was rightly made. In such circumstances, no illegality is committed by the authorities. He has prayed for dismissal of the writ petition.

5. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

6. From the perusa