Madhya Pradesh High Court

Rajendra Kumar Pathak vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 7 July, 2025

                                                                1                                WP-15905-2020
                              IN     THE      HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
                                                    AT JABALPUR
                                                         BEFORE
                                              HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VIVEK JAIN
                                                     ON THE 7 th OF JULY, 2025
                                                WRIT PETITION No. 15905 of 2020
                                              RAJENDRA KUMAR PATHAK
                                                       Versus
                                      THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
                           Appearance:
                              Ms. Nandini Tiwari - Advocate for the petitioner.
                              Shri Yogesh Dhande - Government Advocate for the respondent - State.

                                                                    ORDER

The present petition has been filed by the petitioner, who is retired as Sub Inspector of M.P. Police challenging the recovery order Annexure P-1 dated 10.07.2020.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was a Class-III employee holding the post of Sub Inspector in M.P. Police and retired on 30.06.2020. After retirement the recovery order has been issued to him vide Annexure P-1 intimating that the second financial upgradation

granted to him was erroneous, because he has already received two promotions and the said benefit of financial upgradation was ordered to be recovered, amounting to principal amount of Rs.2,16,806/- and interest Rs.1,63,020/- i.e. total Rs.3,79,826/-. It is also contended that there was no undertaking nor any misrepresentation of suppression of fact, therefore, the recovery from the retried Class-III employee is bad in law.

3. Per contra, learned Government Advocate for the respondent - State

2 WP-15905-2020 submits that the petitioner was wrongly granted the benefit of second financial upgradation and there is undertaking on record. Therefore, the recovery is defended.

4. Upon hearing the rival parties, it is clear that the amount sought to be recovered is on account of wrongful grant of benefit of second financial upgradation, w.e.f. 01.04.2006. On the other hand, the undertaking that has been relied by the learned Government Advocate for the State relates to fixation under Seventh Pay Commission Pay Scales w.e.f. 01.01.2016 and this undertaking has been taken on 15.08.2017 at the time of fixation in Seventh Pay Commission Pay Scales. Therefore, this undertaking is having no connectivity or relevance to the erroneous payment, which was made

from 01.04.2006 and has no connection with fixation in Seventh Pay Commission Scales. The petitioner was admittedly Class-III employee at the time of grant of benefits as well as at the time of retirement.

5. In view of the above, the case is squarely covered by the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of State of Punjab & Ors. Vs. Rafiq Masih (White Washer) (2015) 4 SCC 334 and judgment of Full Bench of this Court in WA No. 815 of 2017, wherein in para-35 Full Bench has held has under:-

"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

3 WP-15905-2020 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 (supra) unless the undertaking is given voluntarily."

6 . Consequently, the recovery as ordered vide Annexure P-1 is quashed. If the amount has already been recovered, the same be refunded back to the petitioner within three months from the date of production of copy of this order, failing which it will carry interest at the rate of 6 % per annum from the date of this order. The petition stands disposed of.

(VIVEK JAIN) JUDGE