Madhya Pradesh High Court
Tota Ram Dodiyar vs Revenue Department on 18 June, 2025
Author: Vishal Dhagat
Bench: Pranay Verma, Vishal Dhagat
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:14417
1 WP-175-2019
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT INDORE
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE PRANAY VERMA
ON THE 18th OF JUNE, 2025
WRIT PETITION No. 175 of 2019
TOTA RAM DODIYAR
Versus
REVENUE DEPARTMENT AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Khen Chand Raikwar - Advocate for the petitioner.
Shri Kushal Goyal appearing on behalf of Advocate General.
ORDER
In the instant petition the petitioner has challenged the order of
recovery dated 30.08.2016 of Rs.83340/-(principal amount Rs.49790/- and
interest amount Rs.33550/-) on the ground of excess amount paid to the
petitioner by granting double increments w.e.f 01.07.2001 instead of
15.02.2002. It is stated that the excess payment has been deducted from the
petitioner's pension.
2. The petitioner was working on the post of Reader Nayab Tehsildar,
Piploda. He has since then retired.
3. From the impugned order, it is apparent that recovery has been
made from the petitioner on account of wrong pay fixation.
4. The Full Bench of this Court at Principal Seat, Jabalpur in identical
matters has quashed such recovery orders by judgment dated 06.03.2024
passed in Writ Appeal No.815 of 2017( State of Madhya Pradesh and
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:14417
2 WP-175-2019
Another vs. Jagdish Prasad Dubey and Another) and connected writ petitions
reported in 2024 SCC online MP 1567. It has been held in paragraph No.35
as under:
"Answers to the questions referred
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 and Another vs. Brojo Nath Ganguly
and Another, reported in (1986) 3 SCC 136 unless the undertaking is given
voluntarily."
5. In view of the above the order dated 30.08.2016 passed by the
respondents is hereby quashed. The amount, if any, recovered from the
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:14417
3 WP-175-2019
petitioner be refunded to him along with interest @ 6% per annum from the
date of recovery till date of payment. Let the same be done within a period of
three months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order. The pay
fixation of the petitioner is however maintained.
6. The petition is accordingly allowed and disposed off.
(PRANAY VERMA)
JUDGE
jyoti
