Madhya Pradesh High Court
Ram Prakash Sharma vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 8 August, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:17087
1 WP. No. 8727 of 2013
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT GWALIOR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE ANAND SINGH BAHRAWAT
ON THE 8th OF AUGUST, 2025
WRIT PETITION No. 8727 of 2013
RAM PRAKASH SHARMA
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Arshad Ali M. Haque - Advocate for petitioner.
Shri Dilip Awasthi - Government Advocate for respondent/State.
ORDER
This petition, under Article 226 of Constitution of India, has been filed
seeking the following relief (s):
"1- That, the order annexure P/1 & P/2 dated 10-07-13 passed by
respondent no.3 may kindly be quashed up to the extent of
recovery/adjustment from the pension of gratuity i.e. Rs.90093/-.
2- That, any other relief this Hon'ble Court deems fit and proper
in the facts and circumstances of the case may also be issued in
favour of the petitioner."
2. It is submitted by learned counsel for petitioner that petitioner was retired
on 31.03.2013 as Assistant Sub-Inspector, Class III post. It is further submitted
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:17087
that by order Annexure P-1 and Annexure P-2 dated 10.07.2013, total sum of
Rs.90,093/- was directed to be recovered from the retiral benefits of the
petitioner. Learned counsel for petitioner further submitted that the petitioner has
retired from the post of Assistant Sub-Inspector which is a Class III post without
giving any opportunity of being heard and without giving any show cause notice.
The aforesaid recovery which has been ordered pertains to the year 2001.
3. Per contra, learned Government Advocate opposed the prayer made by
counsel for petitioner and supported the recovery order.
4. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
5. The Full Bench of this Court in Writ Appeal No.815/2017 (State of
Madhya Pradesh and Another vs. Jagdish Prasad Dubey) decided on
06.03.2024 has held that recovery from a retired employee is impermissible if
there has not been any fault on his part in the matter of pay-fixation. The
operative part of the said order reads 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
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:17087
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."
6. As per Annexure R-2 the calculation sheet, wrong pay-fixation was
conducted due to the mistake of the office/department, meaning thereby the
petitioner was not at all fault for the same and the mistake was on the part of the
respondents themselves. The wrong pay-fixation was carried out in the year 2001
and petitioner stood retired in the year 2013.
7. The Supreme Court in the case of Jogeswar Sahoo and others Vs.
District Judge, Cuttack and others reported in 2025 (3) M.P.L.J. (S.C.) 25 has
held as under:
"11. In the case at hand, the appellants were working on the post of
Stenographers when the subject illegal payment was made to them. It
is not reflected in the record that such payment was made to the
appellants on account of any fraud or misrepresentation by them. It
seems, when the financial benefit was extended to the appellants by
the District Judge, Cuttack, the same was subsequently not approved
by the High Court which resulted in the subsequent order of recovery.
It is also not in dispute that the payment was made in the year 2017
whereas the recovery was directed in the year 2023. However, in the
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:17087
meanwhile, the appellants have retired in the year 2020. It is also an
admitted position that the appellants were not afforded any
opportunity of hearing before issuing the order of recovery. The
appellants having superannuated on a ministerial post of
Stenographer were admittedly not holding any gazetted post as such
applying the principle enunciated by this Court in the above quoted
judgment, the recovery is found unsustainable."
8. In view of the above decision of the Full Bench in Jagdish Prasad Dubey
(supra), recovery made from the petitioner cannot be sustained.
9. Petitioner is a Class-III employee. Wrong pay-fixation was carried out in
the year 2001. Thereafter, recovery proceedings were initiated without giving any
opportunity of being heard and without giving any show cause notice and then
the amount of recovery was directed to be recovered from the retiral benefits of
petitioner. Therefore, in view of aforesaid judgments, the recovery mentioned in
Annexure P-1 and Annexure P-2 cannot be sustained and is hereby quashed. The
amount recovered from the petitioner be refunded to him along with interest at
the rate of 6% per annum from the date of recovery till the 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. However, liberty is granted to petitioner to file a
fresh writ petition challenging the pay-fixation made by respondents.
10. With aforesaid observation, present petition stands disposed of.
(Anand Singh Bahrawat)
Judge
pd
