Madhya Pradesh High Court
Sharda vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 6 May, 2025
Author: Subodh Abhyankar
Bench: Subodh Abhyankar
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:12025
1 WP-1357-2017
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT INDORE
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE SUBODH ABHYANKAR
ON THE 6 th OF MAY, 2025
WRIT PETITION No. 1357 of 2017
SHARDA
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Akash Sharma - advocate for the petitioner.
Shri Kusharga Jain -GA appearing on behalf of Advocate General.
ORDER
1. The present petition has been filed by the petitioner under Article
226 of the Constitution of India seeking the following relief:-
"1) It is therefore, prayed that the present petition may
kindly be allowed and by issuing an appropriate writ,
direction or order the impugned order Annexure P/3 be
quashed/set asise."
2. Counsel for the petitioner submits that in the instant petition, petitioner
is aggrieved by recovery order dated 23.1.2017 whereby the petitioner has
been directed to deposit the amount of Rs.121350/-. The said amount is the
principal amount of recovery. The petitioner is retired on 31.8.2016.
Thereafter, the respondents have issued the impugned order directing the
petitioner to deposit the amount of Rs.121350/- because of wrong pay
fixation done by the respondents. Since his pension case was not being
finalized, under protest, the petitioner has deposited the said principal
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:12025
2 WP-1357-2017
amount. It is argued that the recovery of the said amount on account of
wrong pay fixation is contrary to the judgment passed by the Apex Court in
the case of State of Punjab V/s. Rafique Masih (White Washer) reported in
(2015) 4 SCC 334 and further submitted that 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.
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:12025
3 WP-1357-2017
(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."
3. Counsel for the State does not dispute that the issue involved in the
present case is squarely covered by the said judgment. It is not the case of the
respondents that there was any misrepresentation or fraud or cheating
committed by the petitioner in fixation of pay. Further there is no
undertaking at the time of fixation of pay.
4. In view of the above, the recovery order dated 23.1.2017 passed by
respondent No.3 is hereby quashed. The amount, if any, recovered from the
petitioner be refunded to him along with interest @ 6% per annum 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. With the aforesaid, present petition is allowed and disposed of.
(SUBODH ABHYANKAR)
JUDGE
das
