Madhya Pradesh High Court
Smt. Rajkumari Thakur vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 1 May, 2025
Author: Vijay Kumar Shukla
Bench: Vijay Kumar Shukla
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:11505
1 WP-1078-2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT INDORE
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VIJAY KUMAR SHUKLA
ON THE 1 st OF MAY, 2025
WRIT PETITION No. 1078 of 2022
SMT. RAJKUMARI THAKUR
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Sunil Verma - advocate for the petitioner.
Shri Vishal Panwar - GA for State.
ORDER
The petitioner is challenging the order dated 21.10.2021 Annexure P/6
as also the consequential orders whereby pay of the petitioner has been
refixed by withdrawing the pay scale of Rs.15600-39100 + 5400 on the basis
of an objection raised by the Treasury Department and consequential
recovery was ordered to be made from the retiral dues of the petitioner to the
tune of Rs.15,12,794/- on account of the excess payment made to the
petitioner as a result of wrong fixation of pay.
Counsel for the petitioner submits that the aforesaid recovery after the
retirement is illegal and arbitrary. It is further argued that the petitioner has
not made any representation or cheating with the department for the fixation
of pay. There is no fault of the petitioner and, therefore, the recovery cannot
be made. He further submits that the petitioner is a retired class III employee
and the recovery on account of erroneous pay fixation cannot be made in the
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:11505
2 WP-1078-2022
light of the judgment passed by the Apex Court State of Punjab Vs. Rafiq
Masih (2015) 4 SCC 334 and other judgments. It is further submitted that
there is no fraud or misrepresentation on behalf of the petitioner.
Counsel for respondents supported the orders and submitted that the
petitioner was not entitled for the said benefit and the same was granted to
her due to the wrong fixation of pay, and, therefore, the recovery has been
ordered. He further argued that an undertaking was furnished by the
petitioner Annexure R/1.
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 & Anr. vs.
Jagdish Prasad Dubey & Anr.) 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
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:11505
3 WP-1078-2022
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."
In view of the aforesaid, answer of the full Bench the recovery on the
basis of an undertaking/indemnity bond the recovery cannot be made on the
earlier fixation of pay. Apart from that the recovery of the excess amount
paid as salary cannot be recovered from a retired Government servant.
Admittedly in the present case procedure for recovery prescribed under Rule
65 and 66 of Chapter VIII of M.P. Civil Services Pension Rules, 1976 are
not followed.
Counsel for the petitioner submits that the the recovery from the
petitioner cannot be made as there is no misrepresentation or fraud
committed by the petitioner in fixation of pay. He has relied on the judgment
passed by the Apex Court in the case of Shyam Babu Verma Vs. Union of
india, 1994(2) SCC 521, Sahib Ram Vs. State of Haryana , 1995 Supp (1)
SCC 18, Chandi Prasad Uniyal Vs. State of Uttarakhand, (2012) 8 SCC 417
and Syed Abdul Kadir Vs. State of Bihar, (2009) 3 SCC 475 and Yogeshwar
Prasad Vs. National Institute of Education Planning, (2010) 14 SCC 323.
In the light of the aforesaid judgments, the facts of the case are
examined, and from the aforesaid facts, it is pellucid that there is no fault of
the petitioner. Neither any misrepresentation, fraud or cheating was
committed by the employee. The aforesaid undertaking Annexure R/1 is not
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:11505
4 WP-1078-2022
of the relevant period of fixation of pay.
At this stage, counsel for the petitioner submits that gratuity has also
not been paid to the petitioner. The respondents will examine the same, and
if there is no legal impediment in paying the gratuity, the same shall also be
paid to the petitioner in accordance with law.
The petition is accordingly allowed and disposed off.
(VIJAY KUMAR SHUKLA)
JUDGE
VM
