Madhya Pradesh High Court
Smt. Laxmi Kale vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 18 June, 2025
Author: Atul Sreedharan
Bench: Pranay Verma, Atul Sreedharan
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:14432
1 WP-12714-2024
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. 12714 of 2024
SMT. LAXMI KALE
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Ranjeet Sen - Advocate for the petitioner.
Shri Kushagra Jain appearing on behalf of Advocate General.
ORDER
By this petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India,
the petitioner has challegned the orders dated 2.5.2015 (Annexure P/1) and
23.11.2025 (Annexure P/2) passed by respondents No. 2 and 3 respectively
whereby a total sum of Rs. 4,17,731/- (which includes the principal as well
as the interest amount) has been directed to be recovered from the petitioner.
2. The petitioner has retired from the post of Staff Nurse. From the
impugned order it is evident that the recovery has been made from her on
account of wrong pay fixation done in the year 2006.
3. 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
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
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:14432
2 WP-12714-2024
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."
4. In the present case also there is no undertaking furnished by the
petitioner at the time of her pay fixation hence the undertaking produced by
respondent does not help them in any manner. Consequently, the recovery
made from the petitioner cannot be sustained. The orders dated 2.5.2015
(Annexure P/1) and 23.11.2025 (Annexure P/2) are accordingly quashed. Let
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:14432
3 WP-12714-2024
the amount recovered from the petitioner be refunded to her along with
interest @ 6% per annum from the date of recovery till the 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.
5. The petition is accordingly allowed and disposed off.
(PRANAY VERMA)
JUDGE
VD
