Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

9. He has also placed reliance in the matter of Vijay Shankar Trivedi Vs. State of M.P. and others (W.P.No.2395/2017 decided on 17.1.2018) wherein the Coordinate Bench of this Court while referring to the judgment of the Apex Court in the matter of High Court of Punjab and Haryana and others Vs. Jagdev Singh, reported in (2016) 14 SCC 267 and in the matter of State of Madhya Pradesh and others Vs. Chandrashwar Prasad Singh (W.A.No.1232/2017 decided 15.12.2017) had taken a view that the undertaking which has been discussed in the matter of Jagdev Singh was with regard to Class I employee and the case of Class III and Class IV employee were not considered in the aforesaid judgment, therefore, in the case of Class III and Class IV the said judgment would not be applicable as well as the judgment of Jagdev Singh (supra) is a judgment on proposition no. (ii) of the judgment of Rafiq Masih (supra) and proposition No. (ii) deals with the recovery from retired Government employees or the employees who are due to retire within one year from the order of recovery, and therefore, would not apply in the case of Group C and Group D employees and in the light of the judgment passed by the Division Bench in the case of High Court of Rajasthan, Jodhpur in Civil Special Appeal (W) No.349/2014 (Mohammed Yusuf Vs. Maharana Pratap Agriculture & Technology and another) decided on 24.11.2016 had held that even though there was an undertaking given by Class III employee the same was not to be considered in the light of the judgment of Jagdev Singh (supra) as the said judgment was distinguishable on facts and he has further placed reliance in the matter of M.P. Medical Officers Association Vs. State of M.P. and others, 2023 1 JLJ 118, where the Apex Court had taken a view that when the employees are not at fault at the time of pay fixation then the recovery should not be initiated against him and in the light of judgment in the matter of Rafiq Masih (supra) the Apex Court had quashed the recovery for Class III employee.

9. In the said judgment the Court distinguished the judgment of Jagdev Singh (supra) on the pretext that if a person belong to Group C retired from the service and given his undertaking, which cannot be equated with the undertaking given by the Civil Judge (Junior Division), which was dealt with in the case of Jagdev Singh (supra). It was further held that the undertaking is not specific to the recovery, however, it cannot be relied upon. Thus relying upon the judgment of Rafiq Masih (supra) and setting aside the order passed by learned Single Judge, the recovery was quashed.

12. The Division Bench of this Court in The State of Madhya Pradesh & others Versus Chandrashwar Prasad Singh (supra) vide order dated 15.12.2017 has considered the same arguments advanced on behalf of the State Government relying upon the judgment of Jagdev Singh (supra) and the Court held as under:-

We find that the said judgment relied upon by learned counsel for the State has no applicability in the facts of the present case as the undertaking itself is unconscionable writing obtained by the State. The employee has no option but to submit undertaking to avail the benefit of pay-fixation. In a judgment of the Supreme Court reported as (1986) 3 SCC 136 (Central Inland Water Transport Corporation Limited and Another v. Brojo Nath Ganguly and Another), a condition in the appointment letter that the Corporation could terminate the services of the employees without prior notice if it was satisfied that the employee was unfit medically or was guilty of any subordination in respect of other misconduct, was found to be illegal. The Supreme Court held as under:-

13. The said judgment has again been relied upon in the case of Phoolchand Patel (supra) by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court quashing the order of recovery directed against the petitioner.

14. In view of the foregoing discussion, the legal position which can be culled out is that the judgment of Jagdav Singh (supra) is a judgment on proposition No. (ii) of the judgment of Rafiq Masih (supra). Proposition No. (ii) deals the recovery from retired Government employees or the employees who are due to retire within one year from the order of recovery. The Division Bench of the High Court of Rajasthan in Mohammed Yusuf (supra) distinguished the ratio of the judgment of Jagdev Singh (supra) on facts reiterated in the undertaking, if any, given by the Civil Judge, as was the case before the Supreme Court, would not apply in the case of Group-C employees, while Division Bench of this Court in the case of Chandrashwar Prasad Singh (supra) distinguished the same taking a view that if any undertaking has been obtained from an employee at the time of availing the benefit of pay fixation, it cannot be said to be voluntary act on his part because the said employee was having no option except to give such undertaking, it cannot be made the basis for sustaining the recovery. Though the Single Bench in the case of Om Prakash (supra) distinguished the judgment of Jagdev Singh (supra) on the pretext that the petitioner is a Class III employee but in the case at hand though the petitioner was a Class III employee now retired, therefore, this Court merely referred the said judgment to accept the analogy as taken by the High Court of Rajasthan in the case of Mohammed Yusuf (supra) as well as by this Court in the case of in the case of Chandrashwar Prasad Singh (supra).