[Cites 5, Cited by 0]
Madhya Pradesh High Court
The State Of Madhya Pradesh vs Dr. Nirmala on 11 December, 2025
Author: Subodh Abhyankar
Bench: Subodh Abhyankar
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:36439
1 W.A. No.3277/2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT INDORE
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE SUBODH ABHYANKAR
&
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE JAI KUMAR PILLAI
WRIT APPEAL No.3277 of 2025
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
Versus
DR. NIRMALA
Appearance:
Shri Bhuwan Gautam - Government Advocate for
the appellants/State.
Shri Harish Joshi - Advocate for the respondent.
________________________________________________________
Reserved on : 21/11/2025
Post on : 11/12/2025
________________________________________________
ORDER
Per: Justice Jai Kumar Pillai:
This writ appeal has been filed by the appellants/State
under Section 2(1) of Madhya Pradesh Uchha Nyayalaya
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:36439
(Khand Nyaypith Ko Appeal Adhiniyam seeking following
reliefs :-
"i. Allow the appeal by setting-aside the
order dated 07/04/2025 (Anenxure-A/1) passed
by the learned Single Judge in Writ Petition
No.329/2024.
ii. Further, W.P. No.329/2024 may kind be
dismissed in toto being devoid of merits.
iii. Issue any other order as this Hon'ble Court
deems fit."
2. In the writ petition, the petitioner (respondent herein)
has prayed for following reliefs :-
"(i) The order dated 20.10.23 (P/12) issued
by respondent No.1 be modified and quashment
of order dated 09.11.23 (P/14) issued by
respondent No.2, as well as recovery order
dated 05.12.23 (P/15) issued by respondent No.4
be quashed and the respondents be further
directed to pay gratuity and modify the pay
fixation order w.e.f. 18.06.1987 and 01.10.1990
and other retiral benefits payable to the
petitioner be revised within a specified time on
the date of retirement i.e., 31.5.2022.
(ii) The respondents No.1 and 2 be further
directed to sanction and grant senior pay-scale
as well as selection grade to the petitioner w.e.f.
18.6.1993 and 27.7.1998 respectively.
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:36439
(iii) The respondents No.1 be further directed
to pay all the dues payable to the petitioner
within a specified time long with interest
calculated @ 12% per annum.
(iv) The petitioner be awarded cost of the
petition.
(v) Any other and further relief as may be
deemed fit may be granted to the petitioner."
3. The facts of the case in nut shell is that the
respondent herein/petitioner was appointed as Assistant
Professor on 18.06.1987 under the Higher Education
Department. In earlier proceedings pertaining to his service
benefits, this Hon'ble Court, by order dated 23.04.2012,
issued certain directions concerning the grant of senior and
selection grades to the petitioner. These directions formed
the basis for subsequent administrative actions relating to
his pay and service progression.
4. During the course of pension scrutiny, the Treasury
Authorities undertook a re-examination of the petitioner's
pay fixation carried out in the years 1995 and 2000. Upon
verification, it was discovered that the petitioner had been
erroneously granted a higher pay of Rs.2275/- in place of
the correct pay of Rs.2200/-. This discrepancy was
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:36439
attributed to an incorrect recording of the date on which the
petitioner completed his probation. The authorities treated
this as a longstanding irregularity that continued to affect
the correctness of retiral dues.
4. Consequent to the Treasury Objection dated
05.12.2023, recovery proceedings were initiated after
verification of the retiral dues. The recovery was not
undertaken retrospectively as a punitive measure but was
instead initiated as a necessary rectification of an ongoing
financial irregularity that had persisted unnoticed for several
years. The appellants assert that the timing of the recovery
was directly linked to the pension authorization process and
was mandated by the obligation to ensure accuracy and
legality in financial disbursements.
5. The appellants further contend that the Hon'ble
Single Judge, while quashing the recovery and directing
unconditional release of retiral dues, did so without
appreciating the continuing nature of the irregularity in pay
fixation and without granting liberty to the authorities to
initiate recovery proceedings under Rules 65 and 66. They
submit that if the impugned order is allowed to stand, it will
result in considerable financial loss to the State exchequer
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:36439
and will establish an adverse precedent that would impede
the Treasury from correcting wrongful pay fixations at the
crucial stage of pension authorization.
6. The counsel for the appellant submits that the
impugned order is liable to be set-aside as it is contrary to
law, asserting that the Hon'ble Single Judge failed to
appreciate that the recovery in question was not punitive but
arose from a Treasury Objection during final pension
scrutiny, which constitutes a continuing cause. It is urged
that the embargo on recovery of past dues could not have
been mechanically applied without due consideration of
Rule 65 and Rule 66 of the M.P. Civil Services (Pension)
Rules, 1976. The appellant relies upon the Full Bench
decision in State of M.P. & Anr. v. Jagdish Prasad Dubey
(2024 SCC OnLine MP 1567), which categorically upholds
the permissibility of recovery when initiated pursuant to a
Treasury objection and in compliance with Rule 65 and
Rule 66, clarifying that only past recoveries based solely on
old undertakings stand barred. It is contended that the
Hon'ble Single Judge misapplied the Full Bench ratio by
quashing the recovery outright without granting liberty to
initiate proceedings afresh as contemplated by the statutory
framework.
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:36439
7. It is further submitted by the counsel for the appellant
that the undertaking dated 1999 (Annexure R/2), though
executed subsequently, operates prospectively for future
disbursements of pay, and that excess payment continued
even thereafter till retirement, resulting in recurring
financial loss to the State. The appellant contends that the
Hon'ble Single Judge erred in holding that the undertaking
is irrelevant merely because the error in pay fixation
commenced earlier. Reliance is also placed on the judgment
of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in State of Punjab v. Jagdev
Singh, (2016) 14 SCC 267, wherein it has been held that
recovery of excess payment is permissible when an
employee furnishes an undertaking at the time of financial
upgradation, and that the Full Bench decision did not
overrule this settled principle but only carved out an
exception for recoveries made without following the
statutory mechanism.
8. The appellant further argues that the direction to
release full gratuity and retiral dues without permitting
completion of the inquiry under Rule 65 and 66 undermines
the statutory authority of the Treasury and Audit
departments to conduct mandatory verification prior to
sanction of final pension, amounting to an impermissible
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:36439
judicial substitution of an administrative audit process. It is
also pointed out that the Hon'ble Single Judge did not
record any finding that the recovery proceedings were
vitiated for want of notice or opportunity, yet proceeded to
quash the recovery in its entirety; at most, the matter could
have been remanded for compliance with Rule 65 and Rule
66. The appellant asserts that the absolute quashing of
recovery is excessive and contrary to the principles laid
down in Chandi Prasad Uniyal v. State of Uttarakhand
(2012) 8 SCC 417, which recognizes the State's right to
recover public money wrongly disbursed.
9. Lastly, the appellant contends that if the impugned
order were allowed to stand, it would create an adverse
precedent disabling the Treasury from rectifying pay-
fixation anomalies detected during pension sanction,
leading to unjust enrichment of employees and loss to the
public exchequer, contrary to the doctrine that no one can
retain money to which they are not entitled. It is submitted
that the balance of convenience favours the appellants/State,
as no irreparable injury would be caused to the respondent
if recovery proceedings are allowed to continue after due
process, whereas unconditional release of retiral dues
without audit would irreversibly prejudice the State's right
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:36439
to recover wrongful disbursements. The appellants therefore
pray that the order dated 070/4/2025 (Annexure A/1) passed
in W.P. No.329/2024 be set aside, that the writ petition be
dismissed in toto, and that any other appropriate orders be
issued.
10. The learned counsel for the respondent/petitioner has
vehemently opposed all the claims raised by the appellant.
It is submitted that the respondent/petitioner had earlier
filed W.P. No.1101/2010 (S) challenging the order dated
09.10.2009, whereby the representation of the petitioner
seeking grant of higher pay scale/selection grade pay scale
with effect from 18.06.1987 and 27.07.1998 respectively
was rejected. The petitioner had also sought a direction for
payment of all consequential arrears and differences.
11. It was contended that the aforesaid writ petition was
allowed; the impugned order was set aside with a direction
to the respondents to consider the case of the petitioner for
higher pay scale w.e.f. 1993 and for selection grade w.e.f.
27.07.1998. It was further held that such benefits could not
have been denied on the basis of uncommunicated ACRs.
The respondents were directed to comply with the aforesaid
directions positively within a period of three months.
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:36439
12. Pursuant thereto, the respondents passed the order
dated 09.11.2023, which is now under challenge in the
present petition. The learned counsel has also placed
reliance on the order passed by this Court in W.P. No.
2852/2023, disposed of on 05.12.2023, wherein it was
directed that the petitioner's claims be settled, as the PPO
had been issued by the District Pension Officer on
30.11.2023 for release of 100% pension. As regards the
remaining claims relating to insurance, leave encashment,
etc., it is submitted that the same have already been paid
and, therefore, were not adjudicated in the said petition.
13. Heard counsel for both the parties at length.
14. This Court considers that the Single Bench has placed
reliance upon the following reasoning. The Full Bench of
this Court at the Principal Seat, Jabalpur, in matters
identical in nature, has quashed 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. The relevant
observations in paragraph 35 are extracted as under:
"Answers to the questions referred:
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:36439
35.(a) Question No.1 is answered holding that
recovery may be effected from pensionary
benefits or salary based on the undertaking or
indemnity bond executed by the employee
prior to the grant of benefit of pay re-fixation.
The aspect of hardship to a Government
servant is to be considered in accordance with
the judgment of the Larger Bench of the
Hon'ble Supreme Court in Syed Abdul Qadir
(supra). The time period prescribed in Rafiq
Masih (supra), reported in (2015) 4 SCC 334,
is to be adhered to. Conversely, an
undertaking executed at the stage of payment
of retiral dues with reference to re-fixation of
pay or increments effected decades ago
cannot be enforced.
(b) Question No.2 is answered holding that
recovery may be made in respect of excess
payments made under Rules 65 and 66 of the
Rules of 1976, provided the procedure laid
down in Chapter VIII of the Rules of 1976 is
strictly followed. However, no recovery can be
effected under Rule 65 in respect of pay
revision granted to a Government servant at
an earlier stage. In such circumstances,
recovery is to be made in accordance with the
answer to Question No.1.
(c) Question No.3 is answered holding that an
undertaking executed by an employee at the
time of grant of financial benefits on account
of pay re-fixation constitutes a forced
undertaking and, therefore, is unenforceable,
in view of the judgment of the Hon'ble
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:36439
Supreme Court in Central Inland Water
Transport Corporation Limited and Another
vs. Brojo Nath Ganguly and Another,
reported in (1986) 3 SCC 136, unless such
undertaking is voluntarily executed.
In view of the foregoing, it is clear that
recovery on the basis of an undertaking or
indemnity bond cannot be effected in respect
of earlier fixation of pay. Further, recovery of
excess salary cannot be enforced against a
retired Government servant. In the present
case, it is admitted that the procedure
prescribed under Rules 65 and 66 of Chapter
VIII of the M.P. Civil Services Pension
Rules, 1976 has not been followed."
15. Learned counsel for the respondent/petitioner has
contended that no recovery can be made from the
respondent/petitioner in the absence of any
misrepresentation or fraud in the fixation of pay. Reliance is
placed on the judgments of the Hon'ble Apex Court in
Shyam Babu Verma v. Union of India, 1994 (2) SCC 521,
Sahib Ram v. State of Haryana, 1995 Supp (1) SCC 18,
Chandi Prasad Untyal v. State of Uttarakhand, (2012) 8
SCC 417, Syed Abdul Kadir v. State of Bihar, (2009) 3
SCC ATS, and Yogeshwar Prasad v. National Institute of
Education Planning, (2010) 14 SCC 323.
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:36439
16. It is evident that the recovery sought is solely on
account of alleged erroneous fixation of pay and the
execution of an undertaking. The respondents do not allege
any misrepresentation or fraud on the part of the
respondent/petitioner and the amounts in question were
admittedly paid by the respondents/appellant. On perusal of
the undertaking Annexure R/2, it is observed that the
undertaking is of the year 1999, whereas the alleged excess
payment relates to the period for the year of 1993.
Consequently, the undertaking is not germane for recovery
of the alleged excess amounts.
17. This Court is of the considered opinion that in the
circumstances, there is no illegality or infirmity in the order
of the Single Bench. Accordingly, the order of the Single
Bench is hereby affirmed and the present appeal deserves
to be and is hereby dismissed.
18. The appellants/State are directed to release all retiral
dues of the respondent herein/petitioner forthwith, in
accordance with law, within a period of 90 days from the
date of communication of this order.
(Subodh Abhyankar) (Jai Kumar Pillai)
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:36439
Judge Judge
Aiyer*/BL
