Shankarlal vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh
2025 Latest Caselaw 16 MP

Madhya Pradesh High Court

Shankarlal vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 1 April, 2025

Author: Vivek Rusia

Bench: Vivek Rusia

          NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:8568




                                                               1                               WP-17689-2020
                                 IN    THE      HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
                                                       AT INDORE
                                                           BEFORE
                                               HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VIVEK RUSIA
                                                     ON THE 1 st OF APRIL, 2025
                                                  WRIT PETITION No. 17689 of 2020
                                                       SHANKARLAL
                                                          Versus
                                         THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
                           Appearance:
                                 Shri Anil Kumar Namdev - Advocate for the petitioner.
                                 Shri Shrey Raj Saxena - Dy. Advocate General for the respondent / State.

                                                                   ORDER

Petitioner has filed the present petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India being aggrieved by the order dated 15.03.2018, whereby recovery proceeding has been initiated against the petitioner.

02. The respondent filed the reply by submitting that the petitioner was wrongly granted the increment of Rs.950/- on 11.05.1990 treating him to be appointed on the post of Service Grade-II, whereas the petitioner was promoted on the said post.

03. There is no allegation that the petitioner has committed any

misrepresentation or fraud by getting the aforesaid benefit.

04. The recovery is being made at the time of retirement, therefore, so far as the issue of recovery after retirement is concerned, the same is no more res integra in view of the judgment delivered by the Apex Court in the case of State of Punjab & Others v/s Rafiq Masih (White Washer) reported in (2015) 4 SCC 334 as well as judgment delivered by the Full Bench of this Court in the case of The State of Madhya Pradesh & Others v/s Jagdish Prasad Singh (Writ Appeal No.815 of

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:8568

2 WP-17689-2020 2017).

05. The Apex Court in the case of Rafiq Masih (supra) has held thus:-

''(i) Recovery from employees belonging to Class-III and Class-IV service (or Group 'C' and Group 'D' service).

(ii) Recovery from retired employees, or employees who are due to retire within one year, of the order of recovery.

(iii) Recovery from employees, when the excess payment has been made for a period in excess of five years, before the order of recovery is issued.

(iv) Recovery in cases where an employee has wrongfully been required to discharge duties of a higher post, and has been paid accordingly, even though he should have rightfully been required to work against an inferior post.

(v) In any other case, where the Court arrives at the conclusion, that recovery if made from the employee, would be iniquitous or harsh or arbitrary to such an extent, as would far outweigh the equitable balance of the employer's right to recover.''

06. The Full Bench of this Court in the case of Jagdish Prasad Singh (supra) has held as under:-

"Answers to the questions referred:-

35.(a) Question No.1 is answered by holding that recovery can be effected from the pensionary benefits or from the salary based on the undertaking or the indemnity bond given by the employee before the grant of benefit of pay refixation. The question of hardship of a Government servant has to be taken note of in pursuance to the judgment passed by the Larger Bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Syed Abdul Qadir (supra). The time period as fixed in the case of Rafiq Masih (supra) reported in (2015) 4 SCC 334 requires to be followed. Conversely an undertaking given at the stage of payment of retiral dues with reference to the refixation of pay or increments done decades ago cannot be enforced.

(b) Question No.2 is answered by holding that recovery can be made towards the excess payment made in terms of Rules 65 and 66 of the Rules of 1976 provided that the entire procedures as contemplated in Chapter VIII of the Rules of 1976 are followed by the employer. However, no recovery can be made in pursuance to Rule 65 of the Rules of 1976 towards revision of pay which has been extended to a Government servant much earlier. In such cases, recovery can be made in terms of the answer to Question No.1.

(c) Question No.3 is answered by holding that the undertaking given by the employee at the time of grant of financial benefits on account of refixation of pay is a forced undertaking and is therefore not enforceable in the light of the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Central Inland Water Transport Corporation Limited and Another vs. Brojo Nath Ganguly and Another, reported in (1986) 3 SCC 136 unless the undertaking is given voluntarily."

07. In view of the aforesaid judicial pronouncement by the Apex Court as

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:8568

3 WP-17689-2020 well as Full Bench of this Court, the impugned order of recovery is hereby quashed. The amount, if any, recovered from the petitioner be paid to him within a period of 60 days from the date of production of certified copy of this order.

08. With the aforesaid, Writ Petition stands allowed.

(VIVEK RUSIA) JUDGE

Divyansh