Madhya Pradesh High Court

Sarju Prasad Shukla vs Home Department on 2 May, 2025

Author: Vijay Kumar Shukla

Bench: Vijay Kumar Shukla

          NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:11613




                                                              1                             WP-16530-2017
                              IN     THE      HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
                                                     AT INDORE
                                                          BEFORE
                                         HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VIJAY KUMAR SHUKLA
                                                    ON THE 2 nd OF MAY, 2025
                                                WRIT PETITION No. 16530 of 2017
                                                 SARJU PRASAD SHUKLA
                                                         Versus
                                              HOME DEPARTMENT AND OTHERS
                           Appearance:
                                   Shri Rajendra Kumar Shukla, learned counsel for the petitioner.

                                   Shri Anand Bhatt, learned counsel for the respondent/state.

                                                                  ORDER

The petitioner, who is a retired government servant, is challenging the recovery of Rs.3,44,351/- with interest from the gratuity.

The petitioner is retired from the post of Subedra (Ministerial) from the police department. He retired on 31.12.2015. After the retirement, the respondents have deducted the amount of Rs.3,44,351/- and also the amount of Rs.1,10,161/- of interest from the gratuity.

Learned counsel for the petitioner argued that the recovery of the said

amount from his gratuity amount after the retirement is illegal, arbitrary and contrary to the judgment passed by the Apex Court in the case of 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.

Learned counsel for the respondent/state submits that the petitioner

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:11613

2 WP-16530-2017 was not entitled for the pay scale, which has been granted to him. It is argued that the aforesaid pay scale was granted for non-secretarial cadre. However, the employees of the Secretarial cadre have misinterpreted the said order and added Rs.50,60,70/- in the original pay and started getting the said pay scale equivalent to the executive force. Since the petitioner was not entitled for the said pay, therefore, the recovery is being made.

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 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

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:11613

3 WP-16530-2017 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 present case are examined, it is clear that the petitioner was granted benefit by the respondent and the same is being recovered after the retirement. In page no.2 of the return, the following averment has been made :-

"यह क उ आदे श सा रत होने के बाद अनुसिचवीय बल के कमचा रय के ारा वयं ह उ आदे श का मनमाना अथ िनकालकर (चू ं क अनुसिचवीय बल के कमचार ह वेतन इ या द संबंिधत काय का कायालय म संपादन करते ह) उ ह ा होने वाले मूल वेतन म उपरो तदथ 50, 60 एवं 70 पए क वेतन वृ जोड़ते हुए अपने वेेतन को उ नत वेतनमान म प रवितत करते हुए कायपािलक बल के समान

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:11613

4 WP-16530-2017 वेतनमान ा करना आरं भ कर दया गया।'' From the aforesaid assertion in the reply, it cannot be held that there was any cheating or misrepresentation made by the petitioner. The averment made in the reply is not substantiated by any documentary evidence. The said assertion in the reply is vague and does not specify any misrepresentation, cheating or fraud played by the petitioner.

In view of the above, the impugned recovery is hereby quashed. The amount, if any, recovered from the petitioner be refunded to him along with interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of recovery till date of payment. Let the same be done within a period of 3 months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. The pay fixation of the petitioner is however maintained.