Back
RAVI MALIMATH, VISHAL MISHRA, PRAMOD KUMAR AGRAWAL
State of Madhya Pradesh – Appellant
Versus
Jagdish Prasad Dubey – Respondent
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 (1
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
