Madhya Pradesh High Court
Usman Ahmed vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 4 August, 2025
Author: Vijay Kumar Shukla
Bench: Vijay Kumar Shukla
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:20386
1 WP-745-2018
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT INDORE
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VIJAY KUMAR SHUKLA
ON THE 4 th OF AUGUST, 2025
WRIT PETITION No. 745 of 2018
USMAN AHMED
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Ms.Anushaka Jain - Advocate for petitioner.
Shri Mukesh Parwal - Government Advocate for respondents/State.
ORDER
The petitioner who retired from the Government services as a Class-III
employee as Non Medical Supervisor (NMS) under the respondent No.2 -
Chief Medical & Health Officer, Ratlam, has filed present petition under
Article 226 of the Constitution of India challenging the recovery of
Rs.4,09,586/- (with interest) from his post retiral benefits.
Counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is a retired
government servant and the aforesaid recovery from the retiral dues is illegal
and arbitrary. It is further argued that the recovery is being made on account
of wrong fixation, resulting in excess payment.
Counsel for State justifies the action of the recovery.
The respondents have filed the reply, and in the reply, they have not
stated that there was any fault, cheating, or misrepresentation of the
petitioner in the fixation of pay. The reply does not indicate that there was
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:20386
2 WP-745-2018
any fault, misrepresentation, or cheating of the petitioner.
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
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). 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 the
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."
In the case of Shyam Babu Verma vs. Union of India, (1994) 2 SCC
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:20386
3 WP-745-2018
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.''
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 employee, 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
appellantwould not be entitled to the relaxation. The
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:20386
4 WP-745-2018
principal erred in granting him the relaxation. Since the
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."
In the case of Syed Abdul Kadir vs. State of Bihar (2009) 3 SCC 475,
the Apex Court held that the recovery of excess payment from a retired
government servant cannot be made if there is no misrepresentation or fault
on the part of the employee. In the light of the aforesaid judgments, facts of
the case are examined, and it is found that the recovery is made on the
ground of erroneous pay fixation resulting in excess payment to the
petitioner. It is not the case of the respondents that there was any
misrepresentation or cheating committed by the petitioner.
In view of the aforesaid, the petition is allowed. The impugned order
of recovery is hereby quashed.
The petition is accordingly allowed and disposed of.
(VIJAY KUMAR SHUKLA)
JUDGE
MK
