Madhya Pradesh High Court
Narendra vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 3 April, 2025
Author: Subodh Abhyankar
Bench: Subodh Abhyankar
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:8904
1 WP-11760-2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT INDORE
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE SUBODH ABHYANKAR
ON THE 3 rd OF APRIL, 2025
WRIT PETITION No. 11760 of 2025
NARENDRA
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Shobhag Mal Porwal - Advocate for the petitioner.
Shri Anirudh Malpani - G.A./P.L. for respondents/State.
ORDER
The petitioner is challenging the recovery of excess amount paid to
him on account of wrong fixation of pay. It is argued that the aforesaid
recovery of excess payment is contrary to the law. The petitioner is retired
from the post of Ward Boy, which is Class-IV post. The recovery of excess
amount on account of wrong fixation of pay is illegal and contrary to the law
laid down by the Apex Court in the case of State of Punjab V/s. Rafique
Masih (White Washer) , (2015) 4 SCC 334 . He further submits that there is
no misrepresentation or fault of the petitioner in fixation of pay.
2. The Full Bench of this Court at Principal Seat, Jabalpur in identical
matters has quashed such recovery orders by judgment dated 06.03.2024
passed in Writ Appeal No.815 of 2017(State of Madhya Pradesh and
Another vs. Jagdish Prasad Dubey and Another) and connected writ petitions
reported in 2024 SCC online MP 1567, it has been held in paragraph No.35
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:8904
2 WP-11760-2025
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
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:8904
3 WP-11760-2025
given voluntarily."
3. In the case of Shyam Babu Verma vs. Union of India, (1994) 2
SCC 521, the Apex Court while observing that the petitioners therein were
not entitled to the higher pay scales, had come to the conclusion that since
the amount has already been paid to the petitioner, for no fault of theirs, the
said amount shall not be recovered by the respondent/Union of India. The
observation made by the Apex Court in the said case is as under:-
''Although we have held that the petitioners were
entitled only to the pay scale of Rs.330-480 in terms of
the recommendations of the Third Pay Commission
w.e.f. January 1, 1973 and only after the period of 10
years, they became entitled to the pay scale of Rs.330-
506 but as they have received the scale of Rs.330-560
since 1973 due to no fault of theirs and that scale is
being reduced in the year 1984 with effect from January
1, 1973, it shall only be just and proper not to recover
any excess amount which has already been paid to
them.''
(emphasis supplied)
4. In the case of Sahib Verma vs. State of Haryana (1995) Supp. (1)
SCC 18, the Apex Court once again held that although the employee did not
possess the required educational qualification, yet the Principal granting him
the relaxation,, had paid the salary on the revised pay scale. It was further
observed that the said payment was not on account of misrepresentation by
the emplooyee, but by a mistake committed by the department and, therefore,
the recovery could not have been made. The relevant observation of the
Apex Court is reproduced as under:-
''Admittedly the appellant does not possess the required
educational qualifications. Under the circumstances the
appellant would not be entitled to the relaxation. The
principal erred in granting him the relaxation. Since the
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:8904
4 WP-11760-2025
date of relaxation the appellant had been paid his salary
on the revised scale. However, it is not on account of
any misrepresentation made by the appellant that the
benefit of the higher pay scale was given to him but by
wrong construction made by the Principal for which
appellant cannot be held to be fault. Under the
circumstances the amount paid till date may not be
recovered from the appellant."
5. In the case of Syed Abdul Kadir vs. State of Bihar (2009) 3 SCC
475, the Apex Court held that recovery of excess payment from a retired
government servant cannot be made if there is no mis-representation or fault
on the part of the employee.
6. In view of the aforesaid, the petition is allowed. The respondents are
directed to refund the recovered amount from the petitioner along with 6%
interest from the date of recovery till the date of payment. Let the aforesaid
exercise be done within a period of three months from the date of
communication of the order passed today. The petition is allowed and
disposed of.
(SUBODH ABHYANKAR)
JUDGE
Pankaj
