MP HC Orders Refund Of Salary Recoveries From Deceased Constable’s Dues And Widow, Finding No Fraud Or Misrepresentation

The petitioner, widow of a police constable who died on 31 January 2022, challenged two recovery orders dated 15 March and 18 July 2022.

The State alleged that her husband had remained absent from duty and had received excess salary; it recovered amounts from his service dues and required the petitioner to deposit further sums.

The petitioner sought quashing of the orders and repayment.

The Court considered whether the alleged excess payment could be recovered from the deceased employee’s widow and service dues.

In State of Punjab v. Rafiq Masih (White Washer), (2015) 4 SCC 334, the Supreme Court held that recovery of excess payments may be impermissible where it would be inequitable or cause undue hardship, including in specified categories of cases.

Thomas Daniel v. State of Kerala, Civil Appeal No. 7115 of 2010, decided 2 May 2022, reiterated that, absent fraud or misrepresentation, recovery after a considerable lapse of time may be impermissible where it causes undue hardship.

The Full Bench in State of Madhya Pradesh v. Jagdish Prasad Dubey, (2024) 2 MPLJ 198, held that recovery under Rules 65 and 66 of the M.P. Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1976, requires compliance with the procedure in Chapter VIII and consideration of hardship principles, including those in Rafiq Masih.

The Court also relied on Clause 6 of the circular dated 31 May 2011.

The recovery proceedings and orders were made after the employee’s death, and the State had recovered amounts from his service dues and required the petitioner to pay further sums.

The petitioner had not received the alleged excess payment, and the record contained no material showing that she had procured it through fraud or misrepresentation.

The alleged unauthorised absence could raise a departmental question about the treatment of the absence period, but did not, by itself, justify transferring liability to the widow or dispensing with legal safeguards applicable to recovery from a deceased employee’s legal representatives.

Applying the cited authorities and Clause 6 of the circular, the Court held the recoveries unsustainable.

It directed the respondents to refund amounts recovered from the deceased employee’s service dues and amounts deposited by the petitioner, subject to verification and avoiding double payment, with interest at 6% per annum from the respective dates of recovery or deposit.

Refund was required within three months of receipt of a certified copy; thereafter, interest would accrue at 12% per annum until payment.

The petition was allowed, with no order as to costs.