Madhya Pradesh High Court
The State Of Madhya Pradesh vs Veer Singh Rajput on 28 March, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:15462
1 WA-1188-2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE SURESH KUMAR KAIT,
CHIEF JUSTICE
&
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VIVEK JAIN
ON THE 28th OF MARCH, 2025
WRIT APPEAL No. 1188 of 2024
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
Versus
VEER SINGH RAJPUT
Appearance:
Shri Abhijeet Awasthi - Deputy Advocate General for
appellants/State.
Shri Sanjayram Tamrakar, Senior Advocate with Shri Atul Kumar
Rai - Advocate for respondent.
ORDER
Per: Hon'ble Shri Justice Suresh Kumar Kait, Chief Justice
The present appeal has been filed on the ground that the
learned Single Judge has failed to appreciate that the
petitioner/respondent has not demonstrated in the contents of writ
petition how the recovery which has been ordered against the
petitioner/respondent is incorrect and when this Hon'ble Court once
came to the conclusion that the recovery is permissible in light of the
undertaking given by the petitioner/respondent therefore, it is clear that
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:15462
2 WA-1188-2024
the petitioner/respondent did not come forward to complete the contents
of undertaking within the prescribed time limit. Hence, the interest
amount attached with the principal amount is required to be refunded to
the appellants as the same is a public money and taxpayer amount.
2. Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants/State submits
that the learned Single Judge has also failed to appreciate the provisions
of rule 65 of the M.P. Civil Services Pension Rules, 1976, wherein, it
has been provided that it is the duty of a government servant to clear all
the government dues at the time of his retirement. The aforesaid Rules
prescribe the power of recovery from the government employee and as
per explanation appended to rule 65, expression ascertainable
government dues includes overpayment of pay and allowance therefore,
the powers prescribed to the authority under rule 65, the order of
recovery of excess payment is just and proper.
3. Counsel for the appellants/State has relied upon the case
o f State of M.P. Vs. Jagdish Prasad Dubey (W.A. No.815/2017) to
submit that quashment of impugned order to the extent of recovery of
interest as well as to the extent of recovery of excess payment is contrary
to the provisions of law.
4. It is not in dispute that the recovery has been initiated on
account of excess salary paid to the petitioner from the month of August,
1986. The case of the respondent herein before the writ court was that
the same could not be done in light of the law laid down in the case of
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:15462
3 WA-1188-2024
State of Punjab & Others Vs. Rafiq Masih (Whitewasher) and others
reported in (2015) 4 SCC 334. Though the case of the appellant before
the writ court was that in light of the judgment of Supreme Court in the
case of High Court of Punjab and Haryana and others Vs. Jagdev Singh
reported in (2016) 14 SCC 267, recovery can be effected if the excess
amount is given.
5. The case of Jagdev Singh (supra) is not applicable, wherein
the undertaking not given by the employee. However, it is only
applicable when the specific undertaking is given by the employee that if
any excess amount is paid that may be recovered subsequently.
6. The writ court has observed on perusal of the recovery chart
that the recovery has been calculated on the basis of erroneous payment
made to the petitioner w.e.f. August, 1986, whereas as per the
undertaking filed by the respondents, the petitioner had given an
undertaking regarding re-fixation of his pay w.e.f.
01.01.1996, 01.01.2006 and 01.01.2016. Thus, any excess amount paid
to the petitioner prior to 01.01.1996 is hit by the judgment passed by the
Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Rafiq Masih (supra).
7. The learned writ court has also clarified that the excess
payment made to the petitioner w.e.f. 01.01.1996 can be recovered in
light of the undertaking given by the petitioner. So far as the recovery of
interest is concerned, the learned writ court has observed that it is not the
case of the appellants that wrong fixation was done because of some
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:15462
4 WA-1188-2024
misrepresentation on the part of the petitioner. Therefore, interest
component cannot be recovered from the petitioner.
8. In view of the above, we find no illegality or perversity in
the order passed by the learned writ court. Finding no merit in the
present appeal, accordingly the same is dismissed.
(SURESH KUMAR KAIT) (VIVEK JAIN)
CHIEF JUSTICE JUDGE
SKM
