Madhya Pradesh High Court
Govind Singh Bais vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 9 October, 2025
Author: Vijay Kumar Shukla
Bench: Vijay Kumar Shukla
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:29569
1 WP-24200-2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT INDORE
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VIJAY KUMAR SHUKLA
ON THE 9 th OF OCTOBER, 2025
WRIT PETITION No. 24200 of 2024
GOVIND SINGH BAIS
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Suyash Malpani - Advocate for the petitioner.
Shri Rajwardhan Gawde - G.A for the respondent/State.
ORDER
The present petition has been filed challenging the recovery order
dated 12/10/2023 passed by Respondent No.4 directing the recovery to the
tune of Rs.4,77,516/- from the petitioner as he was paid excess emoluments
on account of erroneous pay fixation by the respondents.
2. Counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is a
Government employee and is challenging the order of recovery passed on
account of wrong pay fixation. It is argued that the said recovery on account
of wrong fixation of 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.
3. After hearing learned counsel for the parties, this Court finds that
the recovery on the ground of wrong pay fixation without there being
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:29569
2 WP-24200-2024
any fault of the employee or cheating or misrepresentation is erroneous in
the light of the following judgments:-
4. 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)
5. 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 emplooyee, but by a mistake committed by the department and, therefore,
the recovery could not have been made. The relevant observation of the
Apex Court is reproduced as under:-
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:29569
3 WP-24200-2024
''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."
6. 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.
7. In view of the aforesaid, the petition is allowed. The impugned
recovery order dated 12/10/2023 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.
8. Accordingly, present petition stands disposed of.
(VIJAY KUMAR SHUKLA)
JUDGE
PK
