Recovery of excess payments from retired employees is impermissible due to hardship, and cannot be enforced when the employee is not responsible for erroneous salary fixation.

ORDER :

1. The petitioner is widow of a deceased ministerial employee of the police force and she challenges the Order of recovery issued after death of the deceased employee who was working as Sub Inspector (Ministerial) in the M.P. Police Force. The recovery has been ordered vide Order dated 25.3.2021 whereas the husband of the petitioner expired on 04.02.2021 after his retirement in the year 2007 and recovery is not only after death of deceased Class III employee, but as many as 14 years after his death. The recovery includes Rs.3,42,443/- as principal amount and Rs.4,09,882/- as interest.

2. It is contended that initially various other Ministerial employees had filed writ petitions before this court and recovery ordered from the similarly situated employees was set aside only as to the interest part and not for the principal part. Thereafter in various other cases, the Coordinate Benches of this Court have set aside the recovery from Ministerial employees of the police for the principal part also even after considering the affect of judgment of the Supreme Court in case of S.H. Baig and Others Vs. State of M.P. and Others (Civil Appeal No. 9888-9899 of 2018). This was ordered in W.P. No. 19539/2020 ( Umakanti Parihar Vs. State of M.P. and Others ) by the Gwalior Bench of this Court.

3. Subsequently, another Coordinate Bench of this Court in W.P. No. 2629/2021 ( Tehsildar Singh Vs. State of M.P. and Others ) has also quashed the recovery of principal as well as interest part of Ministerial employees of the police.

4. In W.P. No.2629 of 2021, the Coordinate Bench of this Court has passed the following order:-

"1. Petitioners have filed these writ petitions challenging their respective orders of recovery, whereby certain amount has been directed to be recovered from them towards amount paid in excess on account of certain benefits granted to them erroneously. The amount of recovery also includes the interest on the excess amount paid.

2. The petitioner in W.P. No. 2649/2021 (Om Prakash Singh Sikarwar) was initially appointed as Assistant Sub Inspector (M). In course of time, he was promoted to the post of Sub Inspector (M), Accountant and then ultimately as Head Clerk/Subedar (M). He retired on attaining the age of superannuation w.e.f. 31/8/2015. Since, there was some dispute pending with regard to anomaly in fixation of his salary, this petitioner was initially sanctioned anticipatory pension. The respondents vide order dated 13/5/2020 (Annexure P/3) revised his pay-scale in view of judgment of Apex Court in the case of S.H. Baig & Ors. Vs. State of M.P. & Ors. (2018) 10 SCC 621 and consequently, also revised his anticipatory pension vide order dated 14/7/2029 (Annexure P/4). Later on, the impugned order was passed on 2/11/2020 (Annexure P/1) whereby an amount of Rs.28,17,508/- has been directed to be recovered from the petitioner which includes an amount of Rs.15,64,163/- towards the excess amount paid and Rs.12,53,345/- is directed to be recovered towards interest.

3. The petitioner in W.P. No. 2646/2021 (Keshav Singh) was appointed as Assistant Sub Inspector (M) on 15/10/1984 and he retired from service w.e.f. 30/6/2016. His anticipatory pension was also revised vide order dated 13/5/2020 (Annexure P/3) and his pension was revised vide order dated 14/7/2020 (Annexure P/4). The respondents vide order dated 1/9/2020 (Annexure P/1) directed recovery of an amount of Rs.20,60,641/- out of which Rs.11,40,066/- was to be recovered towards excess payment while Rs.9,20,576/- was directed to be recovered towards interest.

4. Likewise, the petition in W.P. No.2629/2021 (Tehsildar Singh) was initially appointed as Daftari on 2/8/1965 and was later on re-designated as He