Madhya Pradesh High Court
Anarsingh Barde vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 4 November, 2025
Author: Vijay Kumar Shukla
Bench: Vijay Kumar Shukla
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:31990
1 WP-11346-2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT INDORE
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VIJAY KUMAR SHUKLA
ON THE 4 th OF NOVEMBER, 2025
WRIT PETITION No. 11346 of 2025
ANARSINGH BARDE
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Rajendra Yadav - Advocate for the petitioner.
Ms.Bhagyashree Gupta - GA for State.
ORDER
In the instant petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of
India, the petitioner is challenging the communication dated 17.12.2024
issued by the DEO, District Khargone, directing to deposit Rs.3,81,026/-,
which was paid in excess to the petitioner during the course of service.
Counsel for the petitioner argued that such recovery after retirement
cannot be made as there was no fault of the petitioner in view of the
judgment in the case of State of Punjab Vs. Rafique Masih (White Washer)
(2015) 4 SCC 314. He also submits that the said recovery on account of
excess pay from the petitioner is not permissible as there is no fault on the
part of the petitioner. It is not the case of the respondents that there is any
misrepresentation of facts, suppression or cheating by the petitioner.
The respondents have filed the reply and submitted that after the
retirement, the case of the petitioner was sent to the competent authority for
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:31990
2 WP-11346-2025
pay fixation, as it was noted that the payment which was made to the
petitioner was contrary to the entitlement.
After hearing learned counsel for parties and taking into consideration
that the recovery from an employee cannot be made by the employer unless
the case of respondents is that the said benefit was granted to him because of
some misrepresentation, suppression, fraud or cheating.
In the case of Shyam Babu Verma vs. Union of India, (1994) 2 SCC
521, the Apex Court while observing that the petitioners therein were not
entitled to the higher pay scales, had come to the conclusion that since the
amount has already been paid to the petitioner, for no fault of theirs, the said
amount shall not be recovered by the respondent/Union of India. The
observation made by the Apex Court in the said case is as under:-
''Although we have held that the petitioners were entitled only to
the pay scale of Rs.330-480 in terms of the recommendations of
the Third Pay Commission w.e.f. January 1, 1973 and only after
the period of 10 years, they became entitled to the pay scale of
Rs.330-506 but as they have received the scale of Rs.330-560
since 1973 due to no fault of theirs and that scale is being reduced
in the year 1984 with effect from January 1, 1973, it shall only be
just and proper not to recover any excess amount which has
already been paid to them.'' (emphasis supplied)
In the case of Sahib Verma vs. State of Haryana (1995) Supp. (1)
SCC 18, the Apex Court once again held that although the employee did not
possess the required educational qualification, yet the Principal, granting him
the relaxation, had paid the salary on the revised pay scale. It was further
observed that the said payment was not on account of misrepresentation by
the employee, but by a mistake committed by the department and, therefore,
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:31990
3 WP-11346-2025
the recovery could not have been made. The relevant observation of the
Apex Court is reproduced as under:-
''Admittedly the appellant does not possess the required
educational qualifications. Under the circumstances the appellant
would not be entitled to the relaxation. The principal erred in
granting him the relaxation. Since the date of relaxation the
appellant had been paid his salary on the revised scale. However,
it is not on account of any misrepresentation made by the
appellant that the benefit of the higher pay scale was given to him
but by wrong construction made by the Principal for which
appellant cannot be held to be fault. Under the circumstances the
amount paid till date may not be recovered from the appellant."
In the case of Syed Abdul Kadir vs. State of Bihar (2009) 3 SCC
475, the Apex Court held that recovery of excess payment from a
government servant cannot be made if there is no misrepresentation or fault
on the part of the employee.
In the reply, it has been stated that the petitioner had furnished an
undertaking but no such undertaking has been enclosed along with the reply.
In view of the aforesaid, the petition is allowed. The impugned
recovery order dated 17.12.2024 is hereby quashed.
(VIJAY KUMAR SHUKLA)
JUDGE
VM
