Madhya Pradesh High Court
Meghraj Namdeo vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 7 August, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:37151
1 WP-30594-2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VIVEK JAIN
ON THE 7 th OF AUGUST, 2025
WRIT PETITION No. 30594 of 2023
MEGHRAJ NAMDEO
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Atul Kumar Rai - Advocate for the Petitioner.
Shri Ved Prakash Tiwari - Government Advocate for the Respondent/State.
ORDER
The petitioner is a retired ministerial employee of the police force and
he challenges the Order of recovery issued after retirement of the employee
who was working as Sub Inspector (Ministerial) in the M.P. Police Force.
The recovery has been ordered vide Order dated 24.01.2020 (Annexure P-1)
and recovery is after retirement of Class III employee. The recovery includes
Rs.6,26,462/- as principal amount.
2. It is contended that initially various other Ministerial employees had
filed writ petitions before this court and recovery ordered from the similarly
situated employees was set aside only as to the interest part and not for the
principal part. Thereafter in various other cases, the Coordinate Benches of
this Court have set aside the recovery from Ministerial employees of the
police for the principal part also even after considering the affect of
judgment of the Supreme Court in case of S.H. Baig and Others Vs. State of
M.P. and Others (Civil Appeal No.9888-9899 of 2018) . This was ordered in
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:37151
2 WP-30594-2023
W.P. No.19539/2020 (Umakanti Parihar Vs. State of M.P. and Others) by
the Gwalior Bench of this Court.
3. Subsequently, another Coordinate Bench of this Court in W.P.
No.2629/2021 (Tehsildar Singh Vs. State of M.P. and Others) has also
quashed the recovery of principal as well as interest part of Ministerial
employees of the police.
4. In W.P. No.2629 of 2021, the Coordinate Bench of this Court has
passed the following order:-
"Petitioners have filed these writ petitions challenging their
respective orders of recovery, whereby certain amount has been
directed to be recovered from them towards amount paid in excess
on account of certain benefits granted to them erroneously. The
amount of recovery also includes the interest on the excess amount
paid.
2. The petitioner in W.P. No.2649/2021 (Om Prakash Singh
Sikarwar) was initially appointed as Assistant Sub Inspector (M).
In course of time, he was promoted to the post of Sub Inspector
(M), Accountant and then ultimately as Head Clerk/Subedar (M).
He retired on attaining the age of superannuation w.e.f. 31/8/2015.
Since, there was some dispute pending with regard to anomaly in
fixation of his salary, this petitioner was initially sanctioned
anticipatory pension. The respondents vide order dated 13/5/2020
(Annexure P/3) revised his pay-scale in view of judgment of Apex
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:37151
3 WP-30594-2023
Court in the case of S.H. Baig & Ors. Vs. State of M.P. & Ors.
reported in (2018)10 SCC 621 and consequently, also revised his
anticipatory pension vide order dated 14/7/2029 (Annexure P/4).
Later on, the impugned order was passed on 2/11/2020 (Annexure
P/1) whereby an amount of Rs.28,17,508/- has been directed to be
recovered from the petitioner which includes an amount of
Rs.15,64,163/- towards the excess amount paid and Rs.12,53,345/-
is directed to be recovered towards interest.
3. The petitioner in W.P. No. 2646/2021 (Keshav Singh)
was appointed as Assistant Sub Inspector (M) on 15/10/1984 and
he retired from service w.e.f. 30/6/2016. His anticipatory pension
was also revised vide order dated 13/5/2020 (Annexure P/3) and
his pension was revised vide order dated 14/7/2020 (Annexure
P/4). The respondents vide order dated 1/9/2020 (Annexure P/1)
directed recovery of an amount of Rs.20,60,641/- out of which
Rs.11,40,066/- was to be recovered towards excess payment while
Rs.9,20,576/- was directed to be recovered towards interest.
4. Likewise, the petition in W.P. No.2629/2021 (Tehsildar
Singh) was initially appointed as Daftari on 2/8/1965 and was later
on re-designated as Head Constable (M). He retired from service
on attaining the age of superannuation w.e.f. 31/8/2009. Like
others, his salary was also revised vide order dated 22/6/2020
(Annexure P/3) while his pension was revised vide order dated
14/7/2020 (Annexure P/4). The recovery of an amount of
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:37151
4 WP-30594-2023
Rs.11,85,707/- was directed against him, out of which
Rs.6,73,729/- was to be recovered towards excess amount paid to
him while Rs.5,11,978/- was to be recovered towards interest.
5. The State Govt. created new Police Ranks (Ministerial) in
the State Police Force under Section 2 of the Police Act, 1861.
The Ministerial employees though equated with executive posts,
but it was decided to continue to draw emoluments in their
existing pay scales or as may be revised from time to time. This
gave rise to litigation filed before erstwhile State Administrative
Tribunal and ultimately travelled upto Apex Court and was
decided by Apex Court in the case of S.H. Baig (supra). After the
decision of Apex Court in S.H. Baig case, the action was taken by
the respondents to re-fix the salary of the ministerial employees
which has resulted into impugned recovery. It be noted that by the
time impugned recovery orders were passed, the petitioners
already retired from service on attaining the age of
superannuation.
6. The respondents have re-fixed the salary/pension of the
petitioners and have also passed separate orders directing recovery
of excess amount together with interest. The petitioners have not
challenged the orders of refixation of their salary/pension.
Meaning thereby, they have accepted the factum of wrong fixation
and consequent revision of their salary/pension. The issue is,
therefore, only about the recovery of the excess amount from them
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:37151
5 WP-30594-2023
after retirement.
7. The learned counsel for the petitioners placed reliance
upon the Full Bench decision of this Court in the case of State of
Madhya Pradesh & others Vs. Jagdish Prasad Dubey reported in
2024(2) M.P.L.J. 198 as also Apex Court decision in the case of
State of Punjab Vs. Rafiq Masih (White Washer) reported in
(2015)4 SCC 334 and submitted that even if the amount was paid
to petitioners in excess, the same cannot be recovered from the
petitioners after their retirement. He also submitted that the
hardships being faced by the petitioners is also required to be
looked into. He, therefore, submitted that impugned recovery from
the retiral dues of petitioners, is not sustainable and liable to be
quashed. Alternatively, he also submitted that since the petitioners
were not responsible for wrong fixation, the amount towards
interest cannot be recovered from them.
8. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State justified
the impugned recovery and submitted that after the judgment of
the Apex Court in the case of S.H. Baig (supra), the respondents
reconsidered the cases of all the employees and re-fixed their
salary/pension. The petitioners were not entitled to amount at
higher rate. The excess amount paid to such employees, on
account of erroneous fixation of their salary, is required to be
recovered from them. He submitted that, in similar case, the High
Court in the case of Smt. Sushma Tiwari Vs. State of M.P. & Ors.
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:37151
6 WP-30594-2023
passed in W.A. No.1760/2007 has upheld the action of recovery of
amount vide judgment dated 21/4/2011. The learned counsel also
relied upon the judgment passed by the Apex Court in the case of
State of Punjab & Haryana Vs. Jagdev Singh reported in (2016)14
SCC 267. The learned counsel for the State also placed reliance
upon the orders passed by the coordinate Benches of this Court in
the case of Smt. Shiv Kumari Kshetri & Ors. vs. State of M.P. &
Ors. passed in W.P. No.4445/2005, Rajedra Bhawsar Vs. State of
M.P. & Ors. passed in W.P. No.826/2017 and Smt. Sobha Jadhav
Vs. State of M.P. & Ors. passed in W.P. No.26972/2019.
9. The learned counsel for the State further submitted that
since the petitioners have submitted an indemnity bond, where
they have undertaken to refund the amount in case of excess
payment, they are bound by said undertaking and, therefore, now
they cannot dispute the recovery being made by the respondents.
10. Considered the arguments and perused the record.
11. The Full Bench of this Court has settled the issue of
recovery of the amount from the employee after his retirement in
the case of Jagdish Prasad Dubey (supra), wherein the Full Bench
has issued the following directions:- "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
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:37151
7 WP-30594-2023
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 (supra) unless the
undertaking is given voluntarily."
12. In view of aforesaid legal position, if the undertaking
furnished by petitioners in W.P. No.2629/2021 & W.P.
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:37151
8 WP-30594-2023
No.2646/2021 is seen, it is gathered that the undertaking has been
submitted at the time of retirement. Therefore, in view of the
directions issued by the Full Bench in para 35(a), such an
undertaking cannot be relied upon by the respondents to justify the
recovery which relates back to a long time ago during the service
tenure of the employee. Further, as observed by the Full Bench,
the hardship of the concerned employee is also required to be
looked into. These are the cases where petitioners were working as
ministerial staff of the Police Department. They have retired long
back in the year 2009, 2015 & 2016. The amount directed to be
recovered from them is also huge. The recovery of amount from
their retiral dues would certainly cause serious hardship to the
petitioners. So far as W.P. No.2649/2021 is concerned, there is no
undertaking filed on record by the respondents.
13. As far as judgment of the Apex Court in the case of
Jagdev Singh (supra) is concerned, the Apex Court permitted
recovery from the employee therein in view of the undertaking
given by him. However, the undertaking in the present case cannot
be relied upon by respondents in view of subsequent Full Bench
decision of the High Court in the case of Jagdish Prasad Dubey
(supra). Therefore, the judgment rendered by the Apex Court in
the case of Jagdev Singh (supra) is of no help to the respondents.
14. The other judgments relied upon by the counsel for the
respondents which are passed by the coordinate Benches of this
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:37151
9 WP-30594-2023
Court also relates to the period prior to the judgment of Jagdish
Prasad Dubey (supra) and are passed relying upon Jagdev Singh .
Thus, in view of subsequent Full Bench judgment of this Court,
the judgment passed by the coordinate Bench of this Court are also
of no help to the respondents.
15. The Apex Court decision in the case of Rafiq Masih
(supra), therefore, is also worth notable at this stage, wherein, in
para 18 Apex Court issued following directions:- "18. It is not
possible to postulate all situations of hardship, which would
govern employees on the issue of recovery, where payments have
mistakenly been made by the employer, in excess of their
entitlement. Be that as it may, based on the decisions referred to
herein above, we may, as a ready reference, summarise the
following few situations, wherein recoveries by the employers,
would be impermissible in law:
(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
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:37151
10 WP-30594-2023
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."
16. It is seen from the impugned orders that a huge amount
is sought to be recovered from the petitioners towards interest.
These are not the cases where the petitioners are held responsible
for erroneous fixation of the salary. Therefore, even if for the sake
of arguments it is presumed that respondents are entitled to
recover excess amount, the respondents cannot be allowed to
recover the interest from the petitioners.
17. In view of aforesaid discussion of facts and law,
particularly in view of the judgment of Full Bench of this Court in
the case of Jagdish Prasad Dubey (supra) and Apex Court
judgment in the case of Rafiq Masih (supra), the impugned orders
of recovery are not sustainable in law. The impugned recovery
orders in respect of each petitioner are accordingly quashed. If any
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:37151
11 WP-30594-2023
amount is recovered from the petitioners, the same be refunded to
them, alongwith interest @ 6% per annum from the date of its
recovery till actual payment.
18. All these three petitions are accordingly allowed and
disposed of."
5. The counsel for the State though has vehemently opposed the
petition but is not in a position to point out any distinguishing feature in the
present case.
6. The same view has been taken recently also by a Division Bench of
this Court in W.A.No.1657/2025 (State of M.P. & Others Vs. Ramrao
Bhimte).
7. Resultantly, the petition is allowed in similar terms as decided by
the Coordinate Bench of this Court in case of Tehsildar Singh (supra) and the
recovery of interest (if any) as well as principal part ordered to be recovered
from the petitioner is hereby set aside. If any amount has already been
recovered, the same be refunded to the petitioner within a period of three
months from the date of production of certified copy of this order, failing
which the amount will carry interest @ 6% p.a. from the date of this order till
actual payment.
8. Accordingly, the petition stands allowed and disposed off.
(VIVEK JAIN)
JUDGE
veni
