[Cites 4, Cited by 0]
Madhya Pradesh High Court
Ramesh Kumar Vishwakarma vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 8 December, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:35830
1 WP-47252-2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT INDORE
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE JAI KUMAR PILLAI
ON THE 8 th OF DECEMBER, 2025
WRIT PETITION No. 47252 of 2025
RAMESH KUMAR VISHWAKARMA
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Rakesh Pal - Advocate for the petitioner .
Shri Raghav Shrivastava - Government Advocate for the respondents
State.
ORDER
1. The petitioner is challenging the order of recovery dated 25.09.2025
(Annexure-P-2) by which an amount of Rs. 2,29,183 has been proposed to be
recovered from the petitioner on the ground that wrong fixation of pay has been
done by the respondents for the period from 01.01.1996 to 31.12.2015.
2. 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.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the recovery on
account of erroneous pay fixation cannot be made in the light of the judgment
passed by the Apex Court in the case of State of Punjab Vs. Rafiq Masih (2015) 4
SCC 334 and other judgments. It is further submitted that there is no fraud or
misrepresentation on behalf of the petitioner.
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:35830
2 WP-47252-2025
4. 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
i n 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
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
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:35830
3 WP-47252-2025
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."
5. In view of the aforesaid, 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. 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.
6. In view of the above, the impugned recovery order dated 25/09/2025
is hereby quashed. The amount, if any, recovered from the petitioner be refunded
along 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.
7. The petition is accordingly allowed and disposed of.
(JAI KUMAR PILLAI)
JUDGE
rashmi
