Madhya Pradesh High Court
Smt.Snehlata Sharma vs State Of M.P on 11 August, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:17291
1 WP. No. 450 of 2012
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT G WA L I O R
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE ANAND SINGH BAHRAWAT
ON THE 11th OF AUGUST, 2025
WRIT PETITION No. 450 of 2012
SMT.SNEHLATA SHARMA
Versus
STATE OF M.P AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Alok Shrivastava - Advocate for petitioner.
Shri Vijay Sundaram - Government Advocate for respondent/State.
ORDER
This petition, under Article 226 of Constitution of India, has been filed
seeking the following relief (s):-
(A) Pass the order allowing this writ petition and declaring the
alleged recovery illegal and quash the same with the issuance of
writ in the nature of mandamus or any order directing the
respondents to refund the recovery amount with interest at the rate
of 24% per annum to the petitioner.
(B) Pass any other orders as His Lordship thinks fit and suitable
in the factual and legal matrix of the instant case for the ends of
justice. Including the cost and compensation to the petitioner from
the respondents.
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:17291
2. Petitioner's husband was working on the post of timekeeper. He expired on
03.02.2011. Husband of petitioner was retired on 28.02.2005 as a time-keeper.
An amount of Rs.1,32,999/- (as mentioned in Annexure P-6 dated 15.06.2005)
was recovered from him. The said recovery was due to excess payment made to
husband of petitioner.
3. Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the recovery after the death of the
employee is not permissible. He further submitted that the alleged excess amount
has been paid on account of wrong fixation of salary of the petitioner's husband
from 30.10.1999 till February, 2003. He further submitted that an amount of
Rs.1,32,999/- has been directed to be recovered towards interest which is even
otherwise not permissible inasmuch as the petitioner's husband was not
responsible for the wrong fixation. He relied upon the Full Bench decision of this
Court in the case of State of Madhya Pradesh & others Vs. Jagdish Prasad
Dubey, (2024) 2 M.P.L.J.198.
4. On the other hand, counsel for the State opposed the prayer and submitted
that the excess amount was paid on account of erroneous fixation of salary of
petitioner's husband and therefore, the respondents are entitled to recover the
amount paid in excess.
5. Considered the arguments and perused the record.
6. The Full Bench of this Court in the case of Jagdish Prasad Dubey
(supra), has dealt with the similar issue and held as under:
"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
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:17291
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. Converselyan 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."
7. The Apex Court has also dealt with the similar issue in the case of State of
Punjab Vs. Rafiq Masih (White Washer), (2015) 4 SCC 334, wherein, the Apex
Court held as under:-
"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).
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:17291
(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 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."
8. 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
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."
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:17291
9. Husband of petitioner was a Class III employee. Recovery pertains to the
year 2005 and it has been initiated without giving any show-cause notice to him
or an opportunity of being heard. In view of the aforesaid legal position, the
impugned recovery is not permissible. Therefore, while setting aside the
impugned recovery, the respondents are directed to refund the amount of
Rs.1,32,999/- to the petitioner. Since the impugned order was already passed on
15.06.2005 and the present petition has been filed on 12.01.2012, the petitioner is
held not entitled to interest on the amount withheld by the respondents. However,
the respondents shall pay interest @6% per annum on Rs. 1,32,999/- w.e.f. the
date of filing of this petition i.e. 12.01.2012 till actual payment. It is made clear
that in case no recovery is made from the retiral dues, petitioner is not entitled to
the aforesaid relief.
10. Let the said exercise, as directed above, be completed within a period of 90
days from the date of submission of certified copy of this order.
11. The petition is accordingly disposed of.
(Anand Singh Bahrawat)
Judge
pd
