IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT INDORE BEFORE HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE PRANAY VERMA th ON THE 6 OF FEBRUARY, 2024 WRIT PETITION No. 9817 of 2020 BETWEEN:-

RAM CHANDRA SAURASHTRIYA S/O SHRI KACHRU LAL SAURASHTRIYA, AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS, OCCUPATION: SERVICE 160, HARIJAN MOHALLA, RAM MANDIR, PINDONIYA, DISTT-

SHAJAPUR (MADHYA PRADESH)

.....PETITIONER (BY SHRI RANJEET SEN - ADVOCATE)

AND THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH PRICIPAL

1. SECRETARY VALLABH BHAWAN (MADHYA PRADESH)

CHIEF MEDICAL AND HEALTH OFFICER

2.

SHAJAPUR (MADHYA PRADESH)

BLOCK MEDICAL AND HEALTH OFFICER

3. PRIMARY HEALTH CENTRE BERCHA DIST.

SHAJAPUR (MADHYA PRADESH)

DISTRICT TREASURY OFFICER SHAJAPUR

4.

(MADHYA PRADESH)

JOINT DIRECTOR DIRECTORATE OF

5. TREASURY AND ACCOUNTS DIVISIONAL OFFICE. UJJAIN (MADHYA PRADESH)

.....RESPONDENTS ( BY MS. PRANJALI YAJURVEDI - GOVT. ADVOCATE)

This petition coming on for admission this day, the court passed Signature Not Verified Signed by: NEERAJ the following:

ORDER

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

2. By this petition preferred under Article 226 of the Constitution of India the petitioner has challenged the order dated 07.09.2019 passed by the respondents and the calculation-sheet issued in the year June, 2020 whereby an amount of Rs.1,23,332/- along with interest @ 12% per annum i.e. Rs.1,47,911/- total Rs.2,71,243/- has been ordered to be recovered from him towards excess payment of salary made during the period from 01.04.2006 to 09.01.2015.

3. The impugned order has been challenged by the petitioner by relying upon the judgment passed by the Apex Court in the case of State of Punjab and Others V/s. Rafiq Masih (White Washer) 2015 (1) MPHT 130 (SC). It is further submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the undertaking which was given by the petitioner was in the year 2017 to the effect that the revision of pay which is being done under the M.P. Revision of Pay Rules, 2017 w.e.f. 01.01.2016 is provisional and in case it is found that any excess amount has been paid to the petitioner the same may be recovered from him. The said undertaking was not in respect of the pay revision of the petitioner made on and from 2006 upto 2015. The undertaking relied upon by the respondents hence cannot be enforced upon the petitioner to make the recovery in question.

Signature Not Verified Signed by: NEERAJ

4. The respondents have filed a reply to the petition and it is submitted by the learned counsel for the respondents that an undertaking had been given by the petitioner that in case any amount is found to have been paid in excess to him the same shall be recoverable from him. The benefit of the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Rafiq Masih (White Washer) (supra) cannot be claimed in the light of judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Punjab and Others V/s. Jagdev Singh passed in Civil Appeal No.3500/2006 wherein the Supreme Court while addressing upon similar issue in the light of Rafiq Masih's case has held that the time of revision of pay scale the petitioner therein had given an undertaking that if any payment is found to be in excess, the same shall be liable to be adjusted, hence the aforesaid judgment is not applicable to the petitioner. It is hence submitted that no illegality has been committed in passing the impugned order.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner in response submits that the undertaking which was given by the petitioner was at the time of grant of benefit under the revision of pay rules. No such undertaking was taken from the petitioner before or after grant of the payscale to him. Therefore, the law laid down by the Apex Court in the case of State of Punjab and Others V/s. Jagdev Singh shall not apply in this case as the petitioner did not give any undertaking for pay fixation for grant of pay revision in light of Pay Revision Rules.

6. In similar facts and circumstances, the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court has allowed the W.P. No. 6425/2015 by order da