Madhya Pradesh High Court
Farida Sheikh vs Public Works Department on 26 August, 2025
Author: Vijay Kumar Shukla
Bench: Vijay Kumar Shukla
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:23777
1 WP-7774-2018
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT INDORE
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VIJAY KUMAR SHUKLA
ON THE 26th OF AUGUST, 2025
WRIT PETITION No. 7774 of 2018
FARIDA SHEIKH
Versus
PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Amit Pal - Advocate for the petitioner.
Shri Kushagra Jain - Dy.GA for State.
ORDER
The petitioner has challenged the impugned order dated 20.7.2017
issued by respondent No.3 whereby recovery of Rs.6,32,871/- has been
ordered from the salary of the petitioner and the same has been sought to be
recovered in monthly instalments.
Counsel for the petitioner argued that during the pendency of the
petition, the petitioner has retired. He further argued that the recovery is
being sought on the ground that the wrong pay fixation of the petitioner, and
therefore, the same was revised and thereafter, the recovery has been ordered
to be made. Counsel for the petitioner argued that recovery on the ground of
wrong fixation of pay is illegal and arbitrary. Learned counsel for the
petitioner submits that the petitioner is a retired class III employee and the
recovery on account of erroneous pay fixation cannot be made in the light of
the judgment passed by the Apex Court State of Punjab Vs. Rafiq Masih
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:23777
2 WP-7774-2018
(2015) 4 SCC 334 and other judgments. It is further submitted that there is
no fraud or misrepresentation on behalf of the petitioner.
Learned counsel for the respondent/state submits that the recovery is
being sought to be made on the basis of an undertaking given by the
petitioner at the time of pay revision.
Upon perusal of the undertaking, which has been filed as Annexure
R/1 along with the reply, this Court finds that the undertaking is not for the
relevant period.
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
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
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:23777
3 WP-7774-2018
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)
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 view of the above, the impugned recovery order dated 20.7.2017 is
hereby quashed. The amount, if any, recovered from the petitioner be
refunded to him along with interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:23777
4 WP-7774-2018
of recovery till the date of payment. Let the same be done within a period of
60 days from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. However, if
the said amount is not returned within the said period, the amount shall carry
9% interest instead of 6%. The pay fixation of the petitioner is, however,
maintained.
The petition is accordingly allowed and disposed off.
(VIJAY KUMAR SHUKLA)
JUDGE
VM
