Madhya Pradesh High Court
The State Of Madhya Pradesh vs Jagdish Prasad Dubey on 11 April, 2018
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
W.A.No.815/2017
Jabalpur, Dated: 11.04.2018
Smt. Namrata Agrawal, Government Advocate for
the appellant/State.
Shri M.R.Verma, Advocate for the respondent.
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 Vs. Laxman Prasad Sharma) on 27.09.2017 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 Vs. 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 Vs. Madan Lal Bardele) decided on 03.04.2017 and W.A.No.1232/2017 (State of Madhya Pradesh Vs. Chandrashwar Prasad Singh) decided on 15.12.2017 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 Vs. 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 Vs. 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.
List on 28.06.2018.
(Hemant Gupta) (V.K.Shukla)
CHIEF JUSTICE JUDGE
anu
Digitally signed by ANUPRIYA
SHARMA
Date: 2018.04.17 12:10:32
+05'30'