Madhya Pradesh High Court
Ram Sarovar Soni vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 21 July, 2025
1 WP-26425-2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VIVEK JAIN
ON THE 21st OF JULY, 2025
WRIT PETITION No. 26425 of 2021
RAM SAROVAR SONI
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Gaurav Maheshwari - Advocate for the petitioner.
Shri Mohan Sousakar Government Advocate for the respondent-State.
ORDER
The petitioner is a retired class-III employee who held the post of
Assistant Grade-II at the time of retirement. He retired on 29.10.2020 and
upon retirement when PPO was issued to him then an amount of Rs.
5,02,982/- was intimated in the said PPO as recoverable amount from the
petitioner.
2. It is the case of the petitioner that he is a retired class-III employee
and recovery cannot be made from him after retirement once the erroneous
payment was made without there being any act of suppression or mis-
representation on the part of the petitioner, nor any undertaking.
3. Per contra, the respondents have filed reply and in the reply it is
contended that recovery is on account of erroneous grant of second
kramonnati/ financial upgradation to the petitioner. However, the
respondents have not come out with any fact regarding the said erroneous
2 WP-26425-2021
payment being based on any misrepresentation or fraud of the petitioner or
any undertaking taken from the petitioner for grant of grant of said benefit.
4. In view of the above, the case is squarely covered by the
judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Punjab and
others Vs. Rafiq Masih and others 2015(4) SCC 334, wherein the Supreme
Court has held 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 here in above, 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).
(ii) 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 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. So far as the other contentions raised by the State, i.e. Rule 65 of
M.P. Civil Services Pension Rules is concerned, all these aspects have been
recently considered by Full Bench of this Court in W.A. No.815/2017 vide
judgment dated 06.03.2024. The Full Bench had the occasion to consider the
following questions:-
"1. Whether the recovery can be ordered to be affected from the pensionary
3 WP-26425-2021
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).
4. Any other question which is raised for decision before the Larger Bench or
which the Larger Bench considers arising out of the issues canvased."
6. After exhaustive consideration of the entire law on the subject,
the Full Bench has answered the aforesaid questions in the 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 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.
7. Therefore, the petition deserves to be and is hereby allowed. Let
4 WP-26425-2021
amount so recovered be refunded back to the petitioner within three months,
failing which the same shall carry interest @ 6% per annum from the date of
this order.
8. So far as other relief regarding third financial upgradation is
concerned, the petitioner may represent in that matter to the respondents who
may decide the same in accordance with law within three months.
9. The petition is allowed and disposed of.
(VIVEK JAIN)
JUDGE
MISHRA
