Madhya Pradesh High Court
Ramesh Kumar Soni vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 21 August, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:39696
1 WP-2101-2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VIVEK JAIN
ON THE 21st OF AUGUST, 2025
WRIT PETITION No. 2101 of 2025
RAMESH KUMAR SONI
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Ajeet Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner.
Shri Praveen Namdeo, learned Government Advocate for
respondent/State.
ORDER
By way of this present petition, the petitioner has put to challenge the
recovery order from the petitioner at the time of retirement vide Annex.P/2 to
the tune of Rs.3,27,200/-. The petitioner is a retired Class-III employee who
held the post of Assistant Grade-III.
2. The petitioner earlier approached this Court in WP No.11415/2024
and this Court directed the respondents to decide the representation of the
petitioner. Now the representation has been decided vide Annex.P/1 dated
10/12/2024 and the same has been rejected. Now rejection order is
challenged before this Court.
3. Undisputedly, the erroneous payment to the petitioner has been
made by granting increments to the petitioner for the period of Adhoc
services which was granted vide order Annex.R/3 dated 06/05/1994. Later
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:39696
2 WP-2101-2025
on, it was found at the time of retirement that the petitioner had not attained
the requisite typing test which was essential condition as per appointment
order Annex.P/3 vide condition No.3 but in absence of acquiring the said
requisite qualification, the increments were erroneously granted to the
petitioner for the Adhoc period and they could have been granted only from
the date the petitioner had attained the typing test i.e. in the year 1991. The
order Annex.R/3 sanctioning the said benefit clearly mentions that it is on the
basis of undertaking given by the petitioner. The said undertaking is also on
record at page 14 of the reply which clearly mentions that the pay fixation be
carried out and if any fixation is found to be erroneous then he would return
back the amount. The undertaking was submitted on 03/05/1994 and the
sanction order was issued on 06/05/1994 within three days of submitting the
undertaking and clearly mentions that it is being issued in pursuance of the
undertaking.
4. In view of the aforesaid, the present case is squarely covered by
judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Punjab and Haryana Vs.
Jagdev Singh reported in (2016) 14 SCC 267 as there is a voluntary
undertaking on record submitted by the petitioner. The aforesaid issue was
also considered by a Full Bench of this Court in WA No.815/2017 (The State
of Madhya Pradesh and others Vs. Jagdish Prasad Dubey and others),
wherein the Full Bench in para 34 held as under:
34. The said issue was considered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court
in the aforesaid judgment in case of Central Inland Water
Transport Corporation Limited (supra). It was held that the
employer should not be allowed to take advantage of its position.
Therefore, the condition of furnishing an undertaking cannot be
forced upon a Government servant. However, if a Government
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:39696
3 WP-2101-2025
servant is willing to furnish an undertaking then the situation
would be otherwise. Therefore in all those cases where the
Government servants have furnished an undertaking willingly at
the time when the benefits of revision of pay have been extended
to them, in such an event, they are bound by the undertaking and
not otherwise. Compelling undertaking cannot result in the
recovery from a Government servant. Therefore, the Question
No.3 is accordingly answered.
5. In view of the aforesaid, no relief can be granted to the petitioner
for retaining the erroneous payment as there is an undertaking voluntarily
submitted by the petitioner.
6. The petition fails and is dismissed.
(VIVEK JAIN)
JUDGE
RS
