Madhya Pradesh High Court
Champakali Uikey vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh Through ... on 29 August, 2025
Author: Vijay Kumar Shukla
Bench: Vijay Kumar Shukla
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:24262
1 WP-23137-2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT INDORE
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VIJAY KUMAR SHUKLA
ON THE 29th OF AUGUST, 2025
WRIT PETITION No. 23137 of 2024
CHAMPAKALI UIKEY
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH THROUGH PRINCIPAL
SECRETARY AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Abhishek Tugnawat - Advocate for the petitioner.
Shri Kushagra Jain Dy.GA for State.
ORDER
The petitioner has filed the present petition challenging the action of
respondents whereby respondents are recovering Rs.3,29,927/- and interest
from the petitioner after the retirement on the ground the same was made in
excess by the department. The petitioner says and submits that the petitioner
has not misrepresented before the respondents and neither has submitted any
false facts/information before the respondents but the respondents themselves
have extended the benefit of the money in excess to the petitioner and the
same is not recoverable from the petitioner being the Class III employee.
2. 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
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:24262
2 WP-23137-2024
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 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."
3 . In view of the aforesaid, answer of the full Bench the recovery on
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:24262
3 WP-23137-2024
the basis of 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.
4 . 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. It
is submitted that the issue involved in the present case is squarely covered by
the Apex Court in the judgment passed in the case of State of Punjab Vs.
Rafiq Masih(white washer) reported in (2015) 4 SCC 334.
5. Counsel for the State submits that the petitioner had furnished an
undertaking.
6. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and upon perusal of the
undertaking, it cannot be held that the undertaking was furnished at the time
of grant of time scale pay. Therefore, the issue is squarely covered by the
aforesaid judgments which are referred hereinabove. In view of the
aforesaid, the impugned order of recovery is quashed. The amount, if any,
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:24262
4 WP-23137-2024
recovered from the petitioner shall be refunded to him along with interest @
6% per annum from the date of recovery till its payment. Let the same be
done within a period of 3 months from the date of receipt of certified copy of
this order. However, the pay fixation of the petitioner is maintained.
7. With the aforesaid, present petition is allowed and disposed off.
(VIJAY KUMAR SHUKLA)
JUDGE
MK
