[Cites 8, Cited by 0]
Madhya Pradesh High Court
Sandeep Kaurav vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 15 December, 2025
Author: Maninder S. Bhatti
Bench: Maninder S. Bhatti
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:67298
1 WP-48459-2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE MANINDER S. BHATTI
ON THE 15th OF DECEMBER, 2025
WRIT PETITION No. 48459 of 2025
SANDEEP KAURAV
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Sanjay Kumar Malvi - Advocate for the petitioner.
Shri Varun Jain - Panel Lawyer for the State.
ORDER
The petitioner is assailing the order impugned dated 10.11.2025
(Annexure P-1) by which the recovery was carried out against the father of
the petitioner. It is contended by the counsel that the father of the petitioner
while working as Upper Division Clerk cum Accountant got superannuated
on 30.6.2020 and died on 22.10.2024. It is submitted that after more than five
years from retirement of his father,the impugned order of recovery dated
10.11.2025 (Annexure P-1) and the said recovery was said to be carried out
on the ground that pay fixation of the petitioner was incorrect and therefore,
the said amount was required to be recovered.
2. It is contended by the counsel that the issue is no more res integra
that there cannot be any recovery after retirement as the Full Bench of this
Court in WA No.815/2017 ((State of M.P. & others Vs. Jagdish Prasad
Dubey) has already decided the controversy, hence, the same deserves to be
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:67298
2 WP-48459-2025
disposed of.
3 . Per contra, counsel for the State has opposed the prayer and
submitted that as there exists an undertaking, the amount has been rightly
recovered from the petitioner, thus, the petition deserved to be dismissed.
4. Having considered the submission and perusal of the record reflects
that it is a case where the recovery was carried out after retirement and such
eventualities were taken note of by the Apex Court in the case of State of
Punjab and others v. Rafiq Masih (White Washer) and others reported in
(2015) 4 SCC 334 wherein the Apex Court held in paragraph 18 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 hereinabove, we may, as a ready reference, summarise
the following few situations, wherein recoveries by the employers,
would be impermissible in law:
(i) Recovery from the employees belonging to Class III
and Class IV service (or Group C and Group D service).
( i i ) Recovery from the retired employees, or the
employees who are due to retire within one year, of the
order of recovery.
(iii) Recovery from the 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
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:67298
3 WP-48459-2025
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."
5 . Thereafter, the controversy came up for consideration before the
Full Bench of this Court as well in Jagdish Prasad (Supra) wherein the
following questions were framed by the Full Bench:-
"1. Whether the recovery can be ordered to be affected from the
pensionary benefits or from the salary in view of an undertaking
or Indemnity Bond taken by the employer before the grant of
benefit of pay refixation.
2. Whether the recovery on account of excess payment to an
employee can be made in exercise of power conferred under Rule
65 of M.P Civil Services Pension Rules, 1976.
3. Whether the undertaking sought at the time of grant of financial
benefits on account of refixation of pay is a forced undertaking
and thus not enforceable in light of judgment of Supreme Court in
(1986) 3 SCC 136 (Central Inland Water Transport Corporation
Limited and Another Vs. Brojo Nath Ganguly and Another)."
6. The aforesaid three questions were answered by the Full Bench of
this Court in following manner:-
"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
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:67298
4 WP-48459-2025
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 (supra) unless the undertaking is
given voluntarily.
9. The Apex Court also again in the case of Jogeswar Sahoo
(supra) held in paragraph as under:
"7. The issue falling for our consideration is not about the legality
of the retrospective promotion and the financial benefit granted to
the appellants on 10.05.2017. The issue for consideration is
whether recovery of the amount extended to the appellants while
they were in service is justified after their retirement and that too
without affording any opportunity of hearing.
8. The law in this regard has been settled by this Court in catena of
judgments rendered time and again; Sahib Ram vs. State of
Haryana, Shyam Babu Verma vs. Union of India, Union of India
vs. M. Bhaskar and V. Gangaram vs. Regional Jt. Director and in a
recent decision in the matter of Thomas Daniel vs. State of Kerala
& Ors.
* * * * *
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:67298
5 WP-48459-2025
11. In the case at hand, the appellants were working on the post of
Stenographers when the subject illegal payment was made to
them. It is not reflected in the record that such payment was made
to the appellants on account of any fraud or misrepresentation by
them. It seems, when the financial benefit was extended to the
appellants by the District Judge, Cuttack, the same was
subsequently not approved by the High Court which resulted in
the subsequent order of recovery. It is also not in dispute that the
payment was made in the year 2017 whereas the recovery was
directed in the year 2023. However, in the meanwhile, the
appellants have retired in the year 2020. It is also an admitted
position that the appellants were not afforded any opportunity of
hearing before issuing the order of recovery. The appellants
having superannuated on a ministerial post of Stenographer were
admittedly not holding any gazetted post as such applying the
principle enunciated by this Court in the above quoted judgment,
the recovery is found unsustainable."
7. In view of the aforesaid law laid down by the Apex Court as well as
Full Bench in Jagdish Prasad (Supra) , there could not have been recovery
from the deceased employee. Accordingly, impugned order dated 10.11.2025
(Annexure P-1) stands quashed. The amount, if any, recovered on the
strength of impugned order dated 10.11.2025 (Annexure P-1) be refunded
back to the petitioner within 60 days from today along with the interest of
6% per annum.
8. Accordingly, the petition stands allowed.
(MANINDER S. BHATTI)
JUDGE
PB
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:67298
6 WP-48459-2025
