Madhya Pradesh High Court
Hemant Sharma vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 25 August, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:19264
1 WP-41082-2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT GWALIOR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE ASHISH SHROTI
ON THE 25 th OF AUGUST, 2025
WRIT PETITION No. 41082 of 2024
HEMANT SHARMA
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Mr. Arun Katare - Advocate for the petitioner.
Mr. N.K. Gupta - GA for the State.
ORDER
The petitioner has filed this writ petition being aggrieved by the action of
the respondents in recovering of amount of Rs.7,19,667/- towards payment of
excess amount, from his retiral dues.
2. The petitioner retired from the post of Sub-Inspector from the office of
Police Training School Tighra, Gwalior w.e.f. 31.08.2022. After his retirement, he
was informed that an amount of Rs.7,19,667/- has been paid in excess to his
entitlement and, therefore, he is required to refund the aforesaid amount before his
retiral dues can be settled. He accordingly gave his affidavit consenting recovery
of the aforesaid amount.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the recovery of
excess amount from the retiral dues of the petitioner is not permissible in view of
the judgment passed by the Apex Court in the case of State of Punjab & Ors. Vs.
Rafiq Masih (White Washer) reported in (2015)4 SCC 334 . He, therefore,
submits that the petitioner is entitled to refund of the amount along with the
interest which has been recovered from his retiral dues.
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:19264
2 WP-41082-2024
4. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents supported the
impugned action of the respondents and submitted that amount was paid to the
petitioner in excess of his entitlement and, therefore, respondents are entitled to
recover the said amount from the petitioner. It is his submission that the petitioner
has given his consent and indemnity bond for recovery of the amount and,
therefore, now he cannot resist the recovery. He further placed reliance upon the
judgment rendered by the Apex Court in the case of High Court of Punjab &
Haryana Vs. Jagdev Singh reported in (2016)14 SCC 267. He thus prays for
dismissal of the petition.
5. The issue of recovery of the amount from the retiral dues of the employee
has been considered by the Full Bench in the case of State of Madhya Pradesh Vs.
Jagdish Prasad Dubey (Writ Appeal No.815 of 2017) , wherein, the Court has 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
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.
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:19264
3 WP-41082-2024
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."
6. In view of the aforesaid legal position laid down by the Full Bench, the
affidavit / indemnity bond being relied upon by the respondents, whereby the
petitioner gave consent for recovery of the excess amount cannot be relied upon,
as the same has been taken from him under coercion that too after his retirement.
7. The Apex Court has also considered the similar issue of recovery of
excess amount from the employee's retiral dues in the case of Rafiq Masih (supra) ,
whereby 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).
(ii) Recovery from retired employees, or employees who are due to
retire within one year, of the order of recovery.
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:19264
4 WP-41082-2024
(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. Considering the aforesaid, the recovery of excess amount from the
petitioner's retiral dues is impermissible and is unsustainable in law. The same is
accordingly quashed. The respondents are directed to refund the amount of
Rs.7,19,667/- together with interest @ 6 % per annum w.e.f. 01.09.2022 till
actual payment to the petitioner within a period of 90 days from the date of
submission of certified copy of this order.
(ASHISH SHROTI)
JUDGE
bj/-
