Madhya Pradesh High Court
Shiv Kumar Yadav vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 11 November, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:32964
1 WP-6946-2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT INDORE
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE JAI KUMAR PILLAI
ON THE 11th OF NOVEMBER, 2025
WRIT PETITION No. 6946 of 2022
SHIV KUMAR YADAV
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Harsh Kushwaha - Advocate for the petitioner.
Ms. Bhagyasri Gupta - Government Advocate for the respondents
State.
ORDER
The petitioner is claiming Rs. 2,11,311/- and interest from the
respondents who at the time of retirement of the petitioner has wrongly and
illegally recovered the aforesaid amount made in excess. The petitioner
submits that the petitioner has not misrepresented before the respondents and
neither has submitted any false fact/information before the respondents but
the respondents has himself extended the benefit of the money in excess.
The facts of the case are that petitioner retired from the post of Sub-
Inspector on 30.04.2020. The pension papers of the petitioner was prepared
with deduction of amount of Rs.2,11,311/- has been recovered from the
gratuity of the petitioner. The petitioner challenged the aforesaid deduction
by the respondent on the ground that the aforesaid deduction/recovery from
the pension is illegal and arbitrary.
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:32964
2 WP-6946-2022
It is submitted that the said recovery is being made after the retirement
of the petitioner and, therefore, the same is contrary to the judgment passed
by this Court as well as the Apex Court in the case of State of Punjab Vs.
Rafiq Masih (2014) 8 SCC 883. It is further argued that there is no
misrepresentation or suppression of fact on the part of the petitioner and it is
not the case of the respondents that the petitioner has made any cheating or
misrepresentation with the respondents. He further argued that the
undertaking which is not relied by the respondent is not of the relevant
period and apart from that no date is mentioned on the said undertaking.
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
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:32964
3 WP-6946-2022
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
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 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)
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:32964
4 WP-6946-2022
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. It
is submitted that the issue involved in the present case is squarely covered by
the Apex Court in the judgment passed in the case of State of Punjab Vs.
Rafiq Masih(white washer) reported in (2015) 4 SCC 334.
After hearing learned counsel for the parties and in the light of the
aforesaid enunciation of law, this Court finds that the recovery on the basis
of an undertaking which was undated, cannot be made after the retirement of
the petitioner. The recovery/deduction from retiral dues is quashed. The
respondents are directed to refund the recovered amount with 6% interest
within period of three months and also finalize retiral dues of the petitioner
in accordance with law after issuing revised PPO.
With the aforesaid, present petition is allowed and disposed off.
(JAI KUMAR PILLAI)
JUDGE
rashmi
