Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
Ravi Malimath, CJ, Vishal Mishra and Pramod Kumar Agrawal, JJ.
The State of Madhya Pradesh & Others v. Jagdish Prasad Dubey
Writ Appeals No. 815 of 2017, 1033 of 2017, 1660 of 2018 and 1661 of 2018; Writ Petitions No. 3809 of 2016, 5133 of 2016, 7306 of 2016, 14547 of 2016, 19012 of 2016, 12293 of 2018, 15216 of 2019, 15238 of 2019 and 16967 of 2019 (Jabalpur): reference arising from the order dated 11.4.2018 passed by the Division Bench in Writ Appeal No. 815 of 2017;
Decided on 6.3.2024
(1) Interpretation of Statute -- Act or Rule requires to be read as it is -- intention of legislature has to be considered while reading Act or Rule. 1955 SCC Online SC 26, 1981 Supp. SCC 87 and Jaishri (2021) 8 SCC 1 followed. [Para 6(a)]
(2) Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1976 (M.P.) -- R. 65 -- “every retiring Government servant” -- does not include retired Government servant. 2018 (2) JLJ 135 = 2018 (3) MPLJ 453 relied on. [Para 7(a)]
(3) Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1976 (M.P.) -- Rr. 65 and 66 -- recovery of excess payment -- held -- employer has right to recover amount of excess payment made to retiring Government servant, subject to what stage the recovery is directed to be made -- no recovery can be made from retired Government employee -- mechanism provided is to consider cases of Government servants due to retire -- proceedings have to be initiated at least two years prior to retirement -- none of the rules deal with proceedings to be initiated for recovery of excess amount from retired Government servant -- no mention of words “retired Government servant” in R. 65 which deals with recovery and adjustment of Government dues -- “ascertainable Government dues” include excess payment of pay and allowances -- these excess payments are recoverable from Government servant prior to his retirement -- Rr. 65 and 66 do not call for any other interpretation than what has been stated therein -- they are required to be applied as per Rules -- recovery can be made from Government servant in pursuance to R. 65, however, recovery can be made subject to propositions laid down in cases of Chandi Prasad Uniyal and Syed Abdul Qadir -- recovery can be effected from pensionary benefits or from salary based on undertaking or indemnity bond given by employee before grant of benefit of pay refixation -- question of hardship of Government servant has to be taken note of -- time period as fixed in case of Rafiq Masih reported in (2015) 4 SCC 334 requires to be followed -- conversely, undertaking given at stage of payment of retiral dues with reference to refixation of pay or increments done decades ago cannot be enforced. (2009) 3 SCC 475 (LB), (2012) 8 SCC 417, (in Reference) (2014) 8 SCC 883 (LB) and (2015) 4 SCC 334 followed. Col. (2006) 11 SCC 709, AIR 2016 SC 3523 and Writ Appeal No. 95 of 2017 decided on 3.4.2017 discussed. (1994) 2 SCC 521, 1995 Supp. (1) SCC 18, (2015) 4 SCC 334, Writ Petition No. 291 of 2016 decided on 6.9.2016, Writ Appeal No. 649 of 2016 decided on 15.11.2016, (1986) 2 LLJ 76, Civil Special Appeal (W) No. 349 of 2004 decided on 24.11.2016 (Raj.), Writ Petition (C) No. 7355 of 2019 decided on 27.9.2021 (Gau.), W. P. (S) No. 9716 of 2019 decided on 30.1.2020 (CG) and 2022 SCC Online SC 536 referred to. [Paras 12, 20, 21, 24, 25 & 35(a)]
(4) Interpretation of Statute -- statute provides for particular thing to be done in particular manner -- it has to be done in that manner alone and in no other manner. (1999) 8 SCC 266, (2015) 13 SCC 722 and 2022 SCC OnLine SC 909 followed. [Para 21]
(5) Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1976 (M. P.) -- Rr. 65 and 66 -- recovery of excess payment -- undertaking by employee -- undertaking furnished at time of extending benefits of revision of pay is required to be taken note of -- indemnity bond in form of undertaking furnished at fag end of service career cannot be said to be undertaking for which recovery of excess payment made decades ago could become effective -- prior to initiating recovery, exceptional circumstances pointed out in case of Syed Abdul Qadir are also required to be considered -- held --recovery can be effected from pensionary benefits or from salary in view of undertaking or indemnity bond given by employee when grant of benefit of pay refixation was made -- recovery can be made in terms of Rr. 65 and 66 provided that entire procedures as contemplated in Chapter VIII are followed by employer -- however, no recovery can be made in pursuance to R. 65 towards revision of pay extended to Government servant much earlier -- in such cases, recovery can be made in terms of answer to Question No. 1 of this judgment. AIR 2016 SC 3523 and (2009) 3 SCC 475 (LB) followed. [Paras 26, 27 & 35(b)]
(6) Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1976 (M.P.) -- Rr. 65 and 66 -- Contract Act, 1872 -- S. 72 -- recovery of excess payment -- undertaking by employee -- undertaking by Government servant at time of refixation of pay made mandatory in cl. 11(1) of Circular dated 22.7.2017 -- language used clearly indicates that until and unless such undertaking is furnished, no amount towards refixation could be extended to him -- held -- same cannot be termed as voluntary undertaking -- such undertaking is given by employee since non-furnishing of undertaking would deny him benefit of revision of pay -- same would not amount to any contract between employee and employer -- in all those cases where Government servants have furnished undertaking willingly when benefits of revision of pay were extended to them, they are bound by undertaking and not otherwise -- compelling undertaking cannot result in recovery from Government servant -- undertaking given by employee at time of grant of financial benefits on account of refixation of pay is forced undertaking and is not enforceable. (1986) 3 SCC 156 and (2013) 8 SCC 345 followed. P/STA No. 18840 of 2014 decided on 12.4.2019 (Guj.), Writ Appeal No. 1232 of 2017 decided on 15.12.2017 relied on. [Paras 33, 34 & 35(c)]
¼1½ fof/k dk fuoZpu & vf/kfu;e ;k fu;e dks oSlk gh iढ+k tkuk visf{kr gS tSlk og gS & vf/kfu;e ;k fu;e dks iढ+rs le; fo/kku eaMy dk vk'k; /;ku esa j[kk tkuk gksrk gSA 1955 ,llhlh v‚uykbu ,llh 26] 1981 lIyhŒ ,llhlh 87 rFkk ¼2021½ 8 ,llhlh 1 vuqlfjrA ¼iSjk 6&,½
¼2½ flfoy lsok ¼isU'ku½ fu;e] 1976 ¼eŒçŒ½ & fuŒ 65 & ^^çR;sd lsokfuo`Ùk gksus okyk 'kkldh; lsod** & fuo`Ùkeku 'kkldh; lsod lfEefyr ughaA 2018 ¼2½ ts,yts 135 % 2018 ¼3½ ,eih,yts 453 voyafcrA ¼iSjk 7&,½
¼3½ flfoy lsok ¼isU'ku½ fu;e] 1976 ¼eŒçŒ½ & fuŒ 65 rFkk 66 & vfèkd lank; dh olwyh & vfHkfu/kkZfjr & fu;kstd dks] blds v/;/khu fd olwyh fd, tkus dk funs'k fdl çØe ij fd;k tk jgk gS] lsokfuo`Ùk gksus okys 'kkldh; lsod dks fd, x, vf/kd lank; dh olwyh djus dk vf/kdkj gS & fuo`Ùkeku 'kkldh; deZpkjh ls dksbZ olwyh ugha dh tk ldrh & micaf/kr ç.kkyh lsokfuo`Ùk gksus okys 'kkldh; lsodksa ds ekeyksa ij fopkj djus ds fy, gS & dk;Zokgh lsokfuo`fÙk ls de&ls&de nks o"kZ iwoZ vkjaHk dh tkuk gksrh gS & fu;eksa esa ls dksbZ Hkh fu;e fuo`Ùkeku 'kkldh; lsod ls vf/kd jde dh olwyh ds fy, vkjaHk dh tkus okyh dk;Zokgh ds fo"k; esa ugha & fuŒ 65 esa] tks 'kkldh; cdk;k dh olwyh vkSj lek;kstu ds fo"k; esa gS] 'kCn ^^fuo`Ùkeku 'kkldh; lsod** dk dksbZ mYys[k ugha & ^^vfHkfu'ps; 'kkldh; cdk;k** esa osru vkSj HkÙkksa dk vf/kd lank; lfEefyr gS & ;g vf/kd lank; 'kkldh; lsod dh lsokfuo`fÙk ds iwoZ mlls olwy fd, tk ldrs gSa & fuŒ 65 vkSj 66 dk mlls fHkUu dksbZ vU; fuoZpu vko';d ugha tks muesa dfFkr gS & mUgsa fu;eksa ds vuqlkj ykxw djuk visf{kr gS & fuŒ 65 ds vuqlj.k esa 'kkldh; lsod ls olwyh dh tk ldrh gS] rFkkfi] olwyh paMh çlkn mfu;ky rFkk lS;n vCnqy dkfnj ds ekeyksa esa vf/kdfFkr çfriknukvksa ds v/;/khu dh tk ldrh gS & osru iqu% fu;ru dk Qk;nk çnku fd, tkus ds iwoZ deZpkjh }kjk fn, x, opuca/k ;k {kfriwfrZ ca/ki= ds vk/kkj ij olwyh isU'ku Qk;nksa ls vFkok osru ls dh tk ldrh gS & 'kkldh; lsod dh dfBukb;ksa ds ç'u ij /;ku fn;k tkuk gksrk gS & ¼2015½ 4 ,llhlh 334 esa laçdkf'kr jQhd elhg ds ekeys esa fu;r dh xbZ dkykof/k dk vuqlj.k djuk vko';d & rRçfrdwy] lsokfuo`fÙk ns;ksa ds lank; ds çØe ij] n'kdksa iwoZ osru ds iqu% fu;ru ;k osruo`f};ksa ds lanHkZ esa fn;k x;k opuca/k ço`Ùk ugha fd;k tk ldrkA ¼2009½ 3 ,llhlh 475 ¼c`gÙkj U;k;ihB½] ¼2012½ 8 ,llhlh 417] ¼2014½ 8 ,llhlh 883 ¼c`gÙkj U;k;ihB½ rFkk ¼2015½ 4 ,llhlh 334 vuqlfjrA ¼2006½ 11 ,llhlh 709] ,vkbvkj 2016 ,llh 3523 rFkk fjV vihy Øekad 95 lu~ 2017 fu.khZr fnukad 3-4-2017 foosfprA ¼1994½ 2 ,llhlh 521] 1995 lIyhŒ ¼1½ ,llhlh 18] ¼2015½ 4 ,llhlh 334] fjV ;kfpdk Øekad 291 lu~ 2016 fu.khZr fnukad 6-9-2016] fjV vihy Øekad 649 lu~ 2016 fu.khZr fnukad 15-11-2016] ¼1986½ 2 ,y,yts 76] flfoy Lis'ky vihy ¼MCY;w½ Øekad 349 lu~ 2004 fu.khZr fnukad 24-11-2016 ¼jktŒ½] fjV ;kfpdk ¼flfoy½ Øekad 7355 lu~ 2019 fu.khZr fnukad 27-9-2021 ¼xkSgkVh½] fjV ;kfpdk Øekad ¼,l½ Øekad 9716 lu~ 2019 fu.khZr fnukad 30-1-2020 ¼NŒxŒ½ rFkk 2022 ,llhlh v‚uykbu ,llh 536 fufnZ"VA ¼iSjk 12] 20] 21] 24] 25 ,oa 35&,½
¼4½ fof/k dk fuoZpu & dkuwu esa fdlh fof'k"V dk;Z dks fdlh fof'k"V jhfr esa djus dk mica/k & mls dsoy mlh jhfr esa djuk gksrk gS] vU; fdlh jhfr esa ughaA ¼1999½ 8 ,llhlh 266] ¼2015½ 13 ,llhlh 722 rFkk 2022 ,llhlh v‚uykbu ,llh 909 vuqlfjrA ¼iSjk 21½
¼5½ flfoy lsok ¼isU'ku½ fu;e] 1976 ¼eŒçŒ½ & fuŒ 65 rFkk 66 & vfèkd lank; dh olwyh & deZpkjh dk opuca/k & osru iqujh{k.k ds Qk;ns fn, tkus ds le; fn, x, opuca/k ij /;ku fn;k tkuk gksrk gS & lsokdky ds vafre Nksj ij opuca/k ds :i esa fn, x, {kfriwfrZ ca/ki= dks ,slk opuca/k ugha dgk tk ldrk ftlds vk/kkj ij n'kdksa iwoZ fd, x, vf/kd lank; dh olwyh çHkkoh dh tk lds & olwyh vkjaHk djus ds iwoZ] lS;n vCnqy dkfnj ds ekeys esa crkbZ xbZ vkiokfnd ifjfLFkfr;ksa ij fopkj djuk Hkh vko';d & vfHkfu/kkZfjr & osru iqu% fu;ru dk Qk;nk çnku fd, tkus ds le; deZpkjh }kjk fn, x, opuca/k ;k {kfriwfrZ caèki= dh –f"V ls isU'ku Qk;nksa ls ;k osru ls olwyh dh tk ldrh gS & v/;k; 8 esa ;Fkk vuq/;kr laiw.kZ dk;Zokfg;ksa dk fu;kstd }kjk vuqlj.k fd;k tk, rks fuŒ 65 vkSj 66 ds fuca/kukuqlkj olwyh dh tk ldrh gS & rFkkfi] 'kkldh; lsod dks cgqr igys fn, x, osru iqujh{k.k ds laca/k esa fuŒ 65 ds vuqlj.k esa dksbZ olwyh ugha dh tk ldrh & ,sls ekeyksa esa] bl fu.kZ; esa ç'u Øekad 1 ds mÙkj ds vuqlkj olwyh dh tk ldrh gSA ,vkbvkj 2016 ,llh 3523 rFkk ¼2009½ 3 ,llhlh 475 ¼c`gÙkj U;k;ihB½ vuqlfjrA ¼iSjk 26] 27 ,oa 35&ch½
¼6½ flfoy lsok ¼isU'ku½ fu;e] 1976 ¼eŒçŒ½ & fuŒ 65 rFkk 66 & lafonk vf/kfu;e] 1872 & /kkjk 72 & vf/kd lank; dh olwyh & deZpkjh dk opuca/k & osru ds iqu% fu;ru ds le; 'kkldh; lsod }kjk opuca/k fn;k tkuk ifji= fnukad 22-7-2017 ds [kaM 11¼1½ esa vkKkid cuk;k x;k & ç;qä Hkk"kk ls Li"V nf'kZr fd tc rd ,slk opuca/k ugha fn;k tkrk- iqu% fu;ru ds QyLo:i mls dksbZ jde ugha nh tk ldsxh & vfHkfu/kkZfjr & bls LoSfPNd opuca/k ugha dgk tk ldrk & deZpkjh }kjk ,slk opuca/k blfy, fn;k tkrk gS fd opuca/k ugha nsus ls og osru iqujh{k.k ds Qk;ns ls oafpr gks tk,xk & ;g deZpkjh vkSj fu;kstd ds e/; fdlh lafonk dh dksfV esa ugha vk,xk & mu lHkh ekeyksa esa tg‚a 'kkldh; lsodksa us ml le; jtkeanh ls opuca/k fn, gSa tc mUgsa osru iqujh{k.k ds Qk;ns fn, x, Fks] og opuca/k }kjk vkc) gSa] vU;Fkk ugha & ck/;dkjh opucaèk 'kkldh; lsod ls olwyh esa ifj.kr ugha gks ldrk & osru ds iqu% fu;ru ds QyLo:i foÙkh; Qk;ns çnku fd, tkus ds le; deZpkjh }kjk fn;k x;k opucaèk cykr~ opuca/k gS rFkk çorZuh; ughaA ¼1986½ 3 ,llhlh 156 rFkk ¼2013½ 8 ,llhlh 345 vuqlfjrA ih@,lVh, Øekad 18840 lu~ 2014 fu.khZr fnukad 12-4-2019 ¼xqtjkr½ fjV vihy Øekad 1232 lu~ 2017 fu.khZr fnukad 15-12-2017 voyafcrA ¼iSjk 33] 34 ,oa 35&lh½
The document states that recovery of excess payments is permissible only when the employee has provided a voluntary and uncoerced undertaking at the time of pay refixation or pension benefit. It emphasizes that such undertakings must be given freely, without pressure or compulsion, to be considered valid and enforceable (!) . If an undertaking is obtained under coercion or as a condition for receiving benefits, it may be deemed invalid, as it would undermine the voluntary nature required for lawful recovery actions (!) . The court underscores the importance of ensuring that undertakings are genuine and voluntary to prevent any claim of unjust enrichment or unfair recovery, reinforcing that the legality of recovery depends on the voluntary nature of the undertaking (!) .
JUDGMENT
1. This reference arises out of the order dated 11.4.2018 passed by the Division Bench of this Court in Writ Appeal No.815 of 2017. The said order reads as under :--
“The learned counsel for the appellant relies upon an order passed by the Division Bench of Gwalior Bench in W.A.No.340/2017 (The State of Madhya Pradesh and Others v. Laxman Prasad Sharma) on 27.9.2017 whereby, it has been held that recovery on account of refixation of pay can be carried out in terms of Supreme Court judgment High Court of Punjab & Haryana v. Jagdev Singh -AIR 2016 SC 3523.
On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent relies upon two Division Bench judgments of this Court in W.A.No.95/2017 (The State of Madhya Pradesh v. Madan Lal Bardele) decided on 3.4.2017 and W.A.No.1232/2017 (State of Madhya Pradesh v. Chandrashwar Prasad Singh) decided on15.12.2017 wherein considering the aforesaid judgment it has been held that no recovery can be affected. In fact, in the order dated 15.12.2017,this Court held that the undertaking given by an employer that employer has a right to recover the amount can not be considered a willing act and thus hit by the judgment of Supreme Court reported in (1986) 3 SCC 136 (Central Inland Water Transport Corporation Limited and Another v. Brojo Nath Ganguly and Another).
Thus, there is a divergent view of different Benches of this Court. Therefore, to resolve the conflict, we refer the matter to Larger Bench to consider the following questions :
1. Whether the recovery can be ordered to be affected from the pensionary benefits or from the salary in view of an undertaking or Indemnity Bond taken by the employer before the grant of benefit of pay refixation.
2. Whether the recovery on account of excess payment to an employee can be made in exercise of power conferred under rule 65 of M.P Civil Services Pension Rules, 1976.
3. Whether the undertaking sought at the time of grant of financial benefits on account of refixation of pay is a forced undertaking and thus not enforceable in light of judgment of Supreme Court in (1986) 3 SCC 136 (Central Inland Water Transport Corporation Limited and Another v. Brojo Nath Ganguly and Another).
4. Any other question which is raised for decision before the Larger Bench or which the Larger Bench considers arising out of the issues canvased. Let the papers be placed before the Chief Justice on administrative side for the constitution of the larger Bench.”
Background of the Reference
2. The brief facts of the aforesaid appeal are as follows :--
(a) This writ appeal was filed being aggrieved by the order dated 17.8.2016 passed by the learned Single Judge in Writ Petition No.12950 of 2014 wherein while allowing the writ petition, the impugned order therein seeking to effect recovery from the petitioner was set aside. Aggrieved by the same, the instant appeal was filed by the State.
(b) The writ petitioner who was working as an Upper Division Teacher superannuated with effect from 30.6.2013. When the pension papers of the writ petitioner was processed, it was found that he was granted the benefit of a higher pay-scale with effect from 1.1.1986. That pursuant to the refixation of the salary with effect from 1.1.1986 to 1.7.2012, it was found that an excess payment of Rs.62,501/- was made to him. The same was sought to be recovered along with interest i.e. a total sum of Rs.1,80,142/-. When the pension papers of the writ petitioner were being processed, he had submitted an indemnity bond, in which he had given an undertaking that in case any excess payment is made to him, the same shall be recovered from his retiral dues.
(c) The learned Single Judge by his order dated 17.8.1016 was pleased to allow the writ petition and quashed the order of recovery by placing reliance on the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Punjab and others v. Rafiq Masih (White Washer) and others reported in (2015) 4 SCC 334. Challenging the said order, the instant writ
Point of Law : Relief against recovery is granted by courts not because of any right in the employees, but in equity, exercising judicial discretion to relieve the employees from the hardship that wi....
Undertakings to refund excess pay bind employees, permitting recovery even from retired Class-III/IV staff, overriding general Rafiq Masih non-recovery principles where employee on notice.
The court established that recovery of excess payments from retired employees, particularly from lower service classes, is impermissible if it results in undue hardship, reinforcing the principles of....
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
