Madhya Pradesh High Court
Sukhnandan Prasad Tiwari vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 25 August, 2025
Author: Maninder S. Bhatti
Bench: Maninder S. Bhatti
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:40366
1 WP-30735-2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE MANINDER S. BHATTI
ON THE 25th OF AUGUST, 2025
WRIT PETITION No. 30735 of 2025
SUKHNANDAN PRASAD TIWARI
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Sumit Tiwari appeared for petitioner.
Shri Pradeep Singh G.A. appeared for respondent.
ORDER
This petition has been filed seeking the following reliefs:-
"7.1 It is therefore prayed that this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to
issue a writ, in the nature of certiorari and quash the impugned order dated
25/10/2024 passed by respondent No.4 and quash the recovery and direct
the respondents to refund the recover amount and restored the benefits
which has been taken away by respondent No.4 by the impugned order with
all service benefits including arrears.
7.2 That, an y other relief which this Hon'ble Court deems fit in
circumstances of the case may kindly be awarded to the petitioner."
2. Learned State counsel has submitted that the question involved herein is
covered by the decision of Full Bench of this Court passed in a reference
Writ Appeal No.815 of 2017 (State of M.P. and others vs Jagdish Prasad
Dubey) dated 06.03.2024 and if a representation is submitted by the
petitioner to the concerning authorities, they will consider the grievance of
the petitioner and settle the dispute in the light of a Full Bench decision of
this Court in the case of Jagdish Prasad Dubey (supra) .
3. A Full Bench of this Court in the case of Jagdish Prasad Dubey (supra)
while dealing with the issue as to recovery after retirement, has held as
follows :
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:40366
2 WP-30735-2025
"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 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."
4. Considering the aforesaid innocuous prayer, without commenting anything
on merit, petition stands disposed of with a direction that if the petitioner
prefers a representation before respondent No.2 within a period of fifteen
days from today, the respondent No.2 shall take decision thereon by passing
a well reasoned and speaking order in accordance with law in the light of
decision of Apex Court in the case of Rafiq Masih (supra) and decision of
Full Bench of this Court in the case Jagdish Prasad Dubey (Supra) within a
period of 60 days.
5. If the petitioner is ultimately found entitled for refund of the amount, the
same shall be refunded to the petitioner within further 30 days alongwith the
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:40366
3 WP-30735-2025
interest @ 6% per annum.
6. With the aforesaid observation, the petition stands disposed of.
(MANINDER S. BHATTI)
JUDGE
Astha
