Madhya Pradesh High Court
Ashok Kumar Khare vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 10 July, 2025
1 WP-15627-2020
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VIVEK JAIN
ON THE 10th OF JULY, 2025
WRIT PETITION No. 15627 of 2020
ASHOK KUMAR KHARE
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Ms. Sharon Agarwal - Advocate for the petitioner.
Shri Akshansh Shrivastava - Panel Lawyer for the respondents/State.
ORDER
The present petition has been filed challenging the recovery ordered
(Annexure P/4) from the retired Class - III employee who stood retired from
the post of Soil Conservation Officer.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner retired on
31.03.2020 and the recovery order dated 28.09.2020 (Annexure P/4) has
been issued thereafter on 28.09.2020 mentioning certain recoverable amounts
to the tune of Rs.1,13,556.00 which is criticized on the ground that no
recovery can be ordered from a Class - III/IV employee.
Per contra, counsel appearing for the State has referred to two
undertakings taken from the petitioner.
Upon hearing the rival parties, it is evident that the undertakings are
taken from the petitioner as per the M.P.Pay Revision Rules, 2009 which
were applicable w.e.f. 01.01.2006 to enforce 6th Pay Commission
2 WP-15627-2020
recommendations in the State. The other undertaking is dated 11.05.1987
which is under the M.P. Pay Revision Rules, 1986.
The aforesaid undertakings are applicable for pay revisions effective
from 01.01.1986 and 01.01.2006 respectively, However, the erroneous
payments have been made from April, 1986 to December, 1990 and April,
2006 to November, 2012 which do not seem to be connected with the
alleged undertakings.
In the reply, the State Government has not come out with a single
word of pleading that how the undertakings are relevant to the impugned
recoveries. The undertakings being related to two different dates then the
starting point of erroneous excess payment are clearly unrelated to excess
payment. Therefore, the case is squarely covered by the judgment of the
Hon'ble 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 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
3 WP-15627-2020
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."
Resultantly, the impugned order of recovery vide Annexure P/4 dated
28.09.2020 is set aside. 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.
Accordingly, the petition stands allowed and disposed of.
(VIVEK JAIN)
JUDGE
SSL
