Madhya Pradesh High Court
Bhagwatiprasad Pandit vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 25 August, 2025
Author: Vijay Kumar Shukla
Bench: Vijay Kumar Shukla
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:23546
1 WP-7524-2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT INDORE
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VIJAY KUMAR SHUKLA
ON THE 25th OF AUGUST, 2025
WRIT PETITION No. 7524 of 2025
BHAGWATIPRASAD PANDIT
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Anand Agrawal, learned counsel for the petitioner.
Shri Kushagra Jain, learned counsel for the respondent/state.
ORDER
In the instant petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of
India the petitioner has challenged the legality and validity of the order dated
22.08.2023 Annexure P/1 and 06.09.2023 Annexure P/2.
By the impugned orders, the pay of the petitioner has been refixed and
the recovery of amount of Rs.1,82,482/- (Principal Rs.115956 + Rs.66532
Interest) be recovered.
The petitioner filed WP No.9562/213 being aggrieved by the denial of
benefit of two advance increments in view of provisions of FR 22-D on
account of his promotion from the post of Lower Division Teacher to Upper
Division Teacher of Middle School by order dated 05.10.2013. The said
petition was disposed of by order dated 14.08.2013. The order reads as under
:-
"The petitioner before this Court has filed the present writ petition
being aggrieved by denial of two advance increments in view of
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:23546
2 WP-7524-2025
the provisions of FR-22D on account of his promotion from the
post of LDT to UDT.
Learned counsel petitioner's counsel at the out set has argued
before this Court that the controversy involved in the present writ
petition is squarely covered by the judgment delivered by this
court in the case of State of MP Vs. Dayaram Patidar on
04.10.2022 in WP No.1104 of 01 and, therefore, petitioner is
entitled the same benefit as has been extended to Shri Dayaram
Patidar.
Learned petitioner's counsel prays for disposal of the present writ
petition in the light of the judgment of Dayaram Patidar (supra).
Learned government advocate has fairly stated before this Court
that the present matter is squarely covered by the judgement
delivered in the matter of Dayaram Patidar (supra) and, therefore,
the present writ petition is being disposed of with a direction to the
respondents to examine the petitioner's case in the light of the
judgment of Dayaram Patidar passed in WP No.1104 of 20011
and to pass necessary orders positively within a period of six
months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order.
It is needless to mention that in case petitioner is found eligible for
grant of the benefits as has been extended to Mr.Dayaram Padidar,
the same consequential benefits shall also been granted to the
petitioner.
With the aforesaid directions, the present writ petition stands
disposed of with no order as to costs."
After the order passed by this Court, the case of the petitioner was
examined, and he was found to be eligible and was granted benefit by order
dated 30.12.2013. However, by order dated 22.08.2023 Annexure P/1, the
same has been modified and the pay has been refixed and as a consequence,
recovery has been ordered.
Learned counsel for the petitioner argued that the petitioner was
granted benefit in compliance to the order passed by this Court. The
respondents have cancelled the said order and making the recovery by
impugned orders only on the basis of a treasury objection and also an
undertaking Annexure R/3.
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:23546
3 WP-7524-2025
Learned counsel for the respondent/state argued that since the
aforesaid benefit was erroneously granted to the petitioner, therefore, the
order has been cancelled and the recovery has been ordered.
After hearing learned counsel for the parties and taking into
consideration that the petitioner was granted benefit in pursuant to the order
passed by this Court after finding him eligible. The said order has been
cancelled by the impugned order and the recovery has been ordered. Once,
the respondents have examined the case of the petitioner for eligibility in
compliance to the order passed by this court, then they could not have
cancelled the said order only on the basis of the treasury objection.
In view of the aforesaid, the impugned order of refixation dated
22.08.2023 Annexure P/1 is quashed.
Since the recovery is being made on account of wrong grant of benefit
by the respondent, the law in this regard is well settled that the recovery
cannot be made on the basis of wrong grant of some benefit, if there is no
fault by the employee.
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 & Anr. vs.
Jagdish Prasad Dubey & Anr.) 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
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:23546
4 WP-7524-2025
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 and Another vs. Brojo Nath
Ganguly and Another, reported in (1986) 3 SCC 136 unless the
undertaking is given voluntarily."
In view of the aforesaid, answer of the full Bench the recovery on the
basis of an undertaking/indemnity bond the recovery cannot be made on the
earlier fixation of pay. Apart from that the recovery of the excess amount
paid as salary cannot be recovered from a retired Government servant.
Admittedly in the present case procedure for recovery prescribed under Rule
65 and 66 of Chapter VIII of M.P. Civil Services Pension Rules, 1976 are
not followed.
Counsel for the petitioner submits that the the recovery from the
petitioner cannot be made as there is no misrepresentation or fraud
committed by the petitioner in fixation of pay. He has relied on the judgment
passed by the Apex Court in the case of Shyam Babu Verma Vs. Union of
india, 1994(2) SCC 521, Sahib Ram Vs. State of Haryana , 1995 Supp (1)
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:23546
5 WP-7524-2025
SCC 18, Chandi Prasad Uniyal Vs. State of Uttarakhand, (2012) 8 SCC 417
and Syed Abdul Kadir Vs. State of Bihar, (2009) 3 SCC 475 and Yogeshwar
Prasad Vs. National Institute of Education Planning, (2010) 14 SCC 323.
In the light of the aforesaid, the impugned order of recovery dated
06.09.2023 Annexure P/2 is also quashed. The petition is allowed. It is
directed that the respondents shall decide the pension case of the petitioner
afresh taking into consideration his pay fixation by granting him 22D benefit
and the amount which has already been recovered from the petitioner shall
also be refunded to him with interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the
date of recovery till date of payment. Let the same be done within a period of
3 months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. The pay
fixation of the petitioner is however, maintained.
The petition is accordingly allowed and disposed off.
(VIJAY KUMAR SHUKLA)
JUDGE
Sourabh
