Madhya Pradesh High Court
Laxmi Yadav vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 3 April, 2025
Author: Subodh Abhyankar
Bench: Subodh Abhyankar
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:8923
1 WP-11480-2025
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. 11480 of 2025
LAXMI YADAV
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Akash Sharma - Advocate for the petitioner.
Shri Rajwardhan Gawde - G.A. for respondents/State.
ORDER
1. The present petition has been filed by the petitioner under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India seeking the following relief:-
"1) That, the Hon'ble Court be pleased to allow the petition by
quashing the impugned order dated 28.09.2021 (Ann. P/1) passed
by the respondent No.3.
2) To quash the other consequential order of amended pay
fixation if any which results in to the passing of aforesaid
impugned order dated 28.09.2021.
3) To issue an appropriate writ, direction or order, as this
Hon'ble Court things fit and proper seeing the facts and
circumstances of the case.
4) Any other relief, which the Hon'ble Court deems fit in the
facts and circumstances of the case, be granted to the petitioner."
2. Counsel for the petitioner submits that in the instant petition, petitioner is
aggrieved by recovery order whereby the petitioner has been directed to deposit the
amount of Rs.12,85,720/-. The said amount is the principal amount of recovery. The
husband of the petitioner is died on 23/12/2020. The pay-scale of the petitioner was
revised and increased by amount of Rs.70/-. Thereafter, the respondents have issued the
impugned order directing the petitioner to deposit the amount of Rs.12,85,720/-
because of wrong pay fixation done by the respondents. Since her pension case was not
being finalized, under protest, the petitioner has deposited the said principal amount of
Rs.5,41,937/-, and balance amount was deducted from retiral dues . It is argued that the
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:8923
2 WP-11480-2025
recovery of the said amount on account of wrong pay fixation is contrary to the
judgment passed by the Apex Court in the case of State of Punjab V/s. Rafique Masih
(White Washer) reported in (2015) 4 SCC 334 and further submitted that 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 & Anr. vs. Jagdish Prasad Dubey & Anr.) and connected
writ petitions reported in 2024 SCC OnLine MP 1567, it has been held in paragraph
No.35 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."
3. Counsel for the State does not dispute that the issue involved in the present
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:8923
3 WP-11480-2025
case is squarely covered by the said judgment. It is not the case of the respondents that
there was any misrepresentation or fraud or cheating committed by the petitioner in
fixation of pay. Further there is no undertaking at the time of fixation of pay.
4. In view of the above, impugned recovery order dated 28.09.2021 passed by
respondent No.3 is hereby quashed. The amount, if any, recovered from the petitioner
be refunded to her/him along with interest @ 6% per annum from the date of recovery
till date of payment. Let the same be done within a period of three months from the date
of receipt of certified copy of this order. The pay fixation of the petitioner is, however,
maintained.
5. With the aforesaid, present petition is allowed and disposed of.
(SUBODH ABHYANKAR)
JUDGE
Bahar
