Madhya Pradesh High Court
Anil Singh Sengar vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 26 November, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:30560
1 WP-7745-2016
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT GWALIOR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE ANAND SINGH BAHRAWAT
ON THE 26th OF NOVEMBER, 2025
WRIT PETITION No. 7745 of 2016
ANIL SINGH SENGAR AND OTHERS
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Neeraj Shrivastava - Advocate for the petitioners.
Shri K.K. Prajapati - Government Advocate for the respondent/State.
ORDER
This petition, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, has been
filed seeking the following reliefs:-
"7(अ) रट पट शन वीकार करते हुए रे पो डे स मांक 6 के ारा
जार ववा दत आदे श दनांक 21.08.2015 मश: अने जर पी-1 एवं
अ य ितकूल आदे श जो क ववा दत आदे श दनांक 21.08.2015
अने जर पी-1 के भाव से जार ह जो पट शनर के व ह को
िनर त / अपा त कए जाने के आदे श एवं िनदश पा रत कए जाने क
कृ पा कर।
7(ब) अ य उिचत रट, आदे श अथवा िनदश याय हत म पट शनर के
प म जार करने क कृ पा कर, करण यय र पो डे टस से दलाये
जाने क कृ पा कर।"
2. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that by impugned order
issued by Chief Executive Officer, Janpad Panchayat, Dabra, District
Gwalior, previous order was modified to the extended in place of
17.09.2008, the date of appointment in Adhyapak Samvarg be read as
17.09.2011. The excess payment made to the petitioner in pursuance of the
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:30560
2 WP-7745-2016
order dated 21.03.2012 was directed to be recovered from the petitioner. The
impugned order was issued by the respondent without affording the
petitioner any opportunity of being heard, and even no show-cause notice
was issued. This clearly demonstrates that the respondents have failed to
adhere to the principles of natural justice. It is further submitted that the
petitioners are class-III employees. At the time of issuance of the order dated
18.01.2013, the petitioners had neither suppressed any material fact nor
misrepresented anything before the department/respondent. As per judgment
of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of State Of Punjab & Ors vs Rafiq
Masih (White Washer) reported in 2015 (4) SCC 334, recovery from
employee belonging to class-III is not permissible.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioners further contended that the
petitioners were not at fault at any point of time and they have not
misrepresented their case nor committed any fraud. He placed reliance on the
judgment of Apex Court in the case of M.P. Medical Officers Association vs.
State of M.P. and others passed in Civil Appeal No.5527/2022 vide judgment
dated 26/08/2022 wherein the Apex Court has quashed the recovery of
excess amount and has directed to refund the entire amount which was
recovered from the employees who were in service.
4. Per contra, learned Government Advocate for the respondents/State
has opposed the prayer and submitted that the recovery has been ordered on
the objection raised by the competent authority for the amount for which
petitioner is not entitled. With the aforesaid submissions, learned counsel for
the State submits that no illegality has been committed while ordering
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:30560
3 WP-7745-2016
recovery. Lastly, it is submitted by learned counsel for the respondent/State
that vide judgment dated 06.08.2025 passed by co-ordinate Bench of this
Court in the case of Ashok Singh Harsana Vs. The State of Madhya Pradesh
and others in W.P.No.8798/2023, in similar matter, it is held:-
"15. .........If the facts of the present case are seen, an amount of
Rs.96,895/- alone is being recovered towards excess payment
made to the petitioner. Thus, looking to the small amount
involved, it cannot be said that the petitioner would suffer
irreparable hardship, if the aforesaid amount is recovered from
him."
5. Considered the submissions put forth by learned counsel for the
parties and perused the record.
6. The Apex Court in the case of M.P. Medical Officers Association
Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh reported in AIR 2022 SC 4009 has held as
under:
"5................ Therefore, as such, there was neither any
misrepresentation on the part of the concerned employees -
members of the appellant association nor can the mistake be
attributed to them. The mistake, if any, can be said to be that of
the Department/State, who issued the circular dated 23.05.2009
under which the members of the association were given certain
benefits till the same was withdrawn in the year 2012."
7. The Full Bench of this Court in the case of Jagdish Prasad Dubey
(supra), has dealt with the similar issue and held as under:
"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).
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:30560
4 WP-7745-2016
The time period as fixed in the case of Rafiq Masih (supra)
reported in (2015) 4 SCC 334 requires to be followed.
Converselyan 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 (supra) unless the undertaking is
given voluntarily."
8. The Apex Court has also dealt with the similar issue in the case of
Rafiq Masih (White Washer) (supra) , wherein, the Apex Court held as
under:-
"12. It is not possible to postulate all situations of hardship, which
would govern employees on the issue of recovery, where
payments have mistakenly been made by the employer, in excess
of their entitlement. Be that as it may, based on the decisions
referred to herein above, we may, as a ready reference, summarise
the following few situations, wherein recoveries by the employers,
would be impermissible in law:
(i) Recovery from employees belonging to Class-III and Class-IV
service (or Group 'C' and Group 'D' service).
(ii) Recovery from retired employees, or employees who are due
to retire within one year, of the order of recovery.
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:30560
5 WP-7745-2016
(iii) Recovery from employees, when the excess payment has been
made for a period in excess of five years, before the order of
recovery is issued.
(iv) Recovery in cases where an employee has wrongfully been
required to discharge duties of a higher post, and has been paid
accordingly, even though he should have rightfully been required
to work against an inferior post.
(v) In any other case, where the Court arrives at the conclusion,
that recovery if made from the employee, would be iniquitous or
harsh or arbitrary to such an extent, as would far outweigh the
equitable balance of the employer's right to recover."
9. The Supreme Court in the case of Jogeswar Sahoo and others Vs.
District Judge, Cuttack and others reported in 2025 (3) M.P.L.J. (S.C.) 25
has held as under:
"11. In the case at hand, the appellants were working on the post
of Stenographers when the subject illegal payment was made to
them. It is not reflected in the record that such payment was made
to the appellants on account of any fraud or misrepresentation by
them. It seems, when the financial benefit was extended to the
appellants by the District Judge, Cuttack, the same was
subsequently not approved by the High Court which resulted in
the subsequent order of recovery. It is also not in dispute that the
payment was made in the year 2017 whereas the recovery was
directed in the year 2023. However, in the meanwhile, the
appellants have retired in the year 2020. It is also an admitted
position that the appellants were not afforded any opportunity of
hearing before issuing the order of recovery. The appellants
having superannuated on a ministerial post of Stenographer were
admittedly not holding any gazetted post as such applying the
principle enunciated by this Court in the above quoted judgment,
the recovery is found unsustainable."
10. The co-ordinate Bench of this Court has already decided the matter
pertaining to the undertaking in the case of Ravindra Kumar Joshi Vs. The
State of Madhya Pradesh and others [Writ Petition No.17831/2019 vide order
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:30560
6 WP-7745-2016
dated 13.05.2024], relevant of which is reproduced below for ready reference
and convenience:
"8. .............It is brought on record by the respondents that at the
time of extending benefit of time scale pay, petitioner has
submitted an undertaking which is placed on record by the learned
counsel for respondents/State and as per the undertaking, the
petitioner had undertaken to repay the amount, if it was found that
the same was extended to him erroneously. In the matter of High
Court of Punjab and Haryana Vs. Jagdev Singh (supra), the Apex
Court has held that if any undertaking is submitted at the time of
grant of financial benefits on account of refixation of pay, the
amount is refundable to the Government or the same is adjustable
in future, and therefore, the action of the respondent/Department
appears to be correct. Full Bench of this Court, in the matter of
State of Madhya Pradesh and others Vs. Jadish Prasad Dubey and
others (supra) has answered the question No.3 by holding that the
undertaking given by the employee at the time of grant of
financial benefits on account of refixation of pay is forced and the
same is not forcible in the light of the Judgment of Hon'ble
Supreme Court in the case of Central Inland Water Transport
Corporation Ltd. and another Vs. Brojo Nath Ganguly and another
(1986) 3 SCC 136, unless the undertaking is given voluntarily
meaning thereby that if undertaking is given voluntarily, recovery
is permissible and if undertaking is forced, then no recovery is
permissible.
9. In the present matter, respondent/State has not established that
petitioner had given undertaking voluntarily. Therefore, the
undertaking shall be treated as obtained forcefully and therefore,
there is no circumstance available in the case to consider the
undertaking, which was not given voluntarily. On the strength of
undertaking, recovery can not be affected."
11. The judgment cited by learned counsel for respondent/State in the
case of Ashok Singh Harsana (supra) is not applicable in the present case
because in the present case, the petitioners have not executed any
undertaking whereby he undertook to refund the amount, if paid in excess to
him as a result of implementation of wrong pay fixation and in the judgment
cited by the respondent in the case of Ashok Singh Harsana (Supra) , the
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:30560
7 WP-7745-2016
undertaking is there and in the present case, no opportunity of being heard
has been provided to the petitioner and even the respondents have not stated
that in reply, the petitioner has submitted some wrong fact and suppressed
any material due to the benefit has wrongly been granted to the petitioner. In
the present case, no show cause notice and no opportunity of being heard has
been provided and without following principle of natural justice, the
impugned recovery order has been issued.
12. In view of the above, the impugned order dated 21.08.2015
(Annexure P/1) in respect of its petitioners are hereby quashed and set aside.
The respondents are directed to refund the amount to the petitioner which
already recovered within a period of three months from the date of receipt of
certified copy of this order. If the respondents have not paid the recovery
amount within the aforesaid period then the respondents shall pay interest @
6% per annum on recovery amount from the date of recovery till the date of
repayment (actual payment) of the petitioners.
13. With the aforesaid, the present petition stands disposed of.
14. Pending interlocutory applications, if any, are also disposed of.
(ANAND SINGH BAHRAWAT)
JUDGE
Monika
