Recovery Of Excess Payment From Retired Employee Impermissible Without Proof Of Misrepresentation: MP HC

Background

Smt. Rooplekha Sirsath, a retired Auxiliary Nurse Midwife (ANM), challenged a recovery order for ₹5,81,867 issued by the Public Health and Family Welfare Department. The order demanded repayment due to an alleged wrongful fixation of her pay. The petitioner argued that this recovery was unjust, as the pay fixation was not a result of any misrepresentation or fault on her part. The recovery order was also challenged in light of the Supreme Court ruling in State of Punjab v. Rafiq Masih (White Washer), 2015 (4) SCC 334, which limits the circumstances under which recovery can be made from retired employees.

The petitioner, being a Class-III employee, further contended that similar recovery orders had been quashed by the Madhya Pradesh High Court's Full Bench, which ruled on similar matters, including State of Madhya Pradesh v. Jagdish Prasad Dubey (Writ Appeal No. 815 of 2017).

Arguments

The counsel for the petitioner, Shri L.C. Patne, argued that the recovery of excess amounts violated precedents set by the Supreme Court and was therefore unlawful. He cited various decisions that prohibited recovery from retired employees when the excess payment was not due to any misrepresentation by the employee. He further relied on the Full Bench decision of the Madhya Pradesh High Court, where such recoveries had been quashed, contending that similar principles applied in this case.

Shri Pranay Joshi, representing the State, supported the recovery order, arguing that the fixation of pay had been improper and therefore necessitated recovery. The respondents also pointed to rules in the Madhya Pradesh Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1976, specifically Rules 65 and 66, which allow recovery of wrongful payments under certain conditions.

Court's Reasoning

Firstly, the court reviewed the Full Bench ruling of the Madhya Pradesh High Court in Jagdish Prasad Dubey, which had quashed recovery orders in similar circumstances. The court also noted that in Shyam Babu Verma v. Union of India (1994) 2 SCC 521 and Sahib Ram Verma v. State of Haryana (1995) Supp. (1) SCC 18, the Supreme Court ruled against recoveries from employees when payments were not the result of their misconduct. Secondly, the court referred to Syed Abdul Kadir v. State of Bihar (2009) 3 SCC 475, where it was held that recovery of excess payment from a retired government servant cannot be made in the absence of misrepresentation. In the present case, since there was no misrepresentation or fraud by the petitioner, the recovery could not be enforced. Thus, the court quashed the recovery order dated 09-02-2016 and directed the respondents to refund the recovered amount to the petitioner with 6% interest from the date of recovery until payment.

Decided on: 18-10-2024

Neutral Citation: 2024:MPHC-IND:29984

Counsel for the Petitioner: Shri L.C. Patne

Counsel for the Respondent: Shri Pranay Joshi

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (MP) 263

Click Here To Read/Download The Order