Madhya Pradesh High Court
Ramratan Yadav vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 27 June, 2025
Author: Pranay Verma
Bench: Pranay Verma
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:15868
1 WP-12879-2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT INDORE
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE PRANAY VERMA
ON THE 27th OF JUNE, 2025
WRIT PETITION No. 12879 of 2021
RAMRATAN YADAV
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Jitendra Verma - Advocate for the petitioner.
Shri Sudarshan Joshi - Government Advocate for the State.
Ms. Archana Kher - Advocate for the respondents No.2 and 3.
ORDER
By this petition preferred under Article 226 of the Constitution of
India, the petitioner has challenged the order dated 06.08.2020 (Annexure
P/1) passed by respondent No.2 whereby a sum of Rs.1,26,132/- has been
directed to be recovered from him.
2. The petitioner has retired from the post of Assistant Grade-III. From
the impugned order and the reply filed by the respondents, it is evident that
recovery has been made from the petitioner on account of wrong pay
fixation.
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
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:15868
2 WP-12879-2021
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."
4. In view of the above, the order dated 06.08.2020 (Annexure P/1)
passed by respondent No.2 is hereby quashed. The amount, if any, recovered
from the petitioner be refunded to him along with interest @ 6% per annum
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:15868
3 WP-12879-2021
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.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the petitioner
is also entitled for third time pay-scale but the same has not been given to
him. It is submitted that the petitioner has already submitted a representation
to the respondents in that regard but the same has not been decided. In the
available facts of the case, it is directed that in case the petitioner submits a
fresh detailed representation along with all relevant documents before the
respondents in respect of the said relief then the said representation shall be
decided by the respondents within a period of three months from the date of
filing of the same in accordance with law by passing a reasoned and a
speaking order. If the petitioner is found entitled for the benefits, the same be
extended to him within a period of one month from the date of the decision.
The petition is accordingly allowed and disposed off.
(PRANAY VERMA)
JUDGE
Shilpa
