Madhya Pradesh High Court
Rooplal Jain vs State Of M.P. & Ors. on 9 October, 2025
Author: Vijay Kumar Shukla
Bench: Vijay Kumar Shukla
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:29579
1 WP-3031-2008
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. 3031 of 2008
ROOPLAL JAIN
Versus
STATE OF M.P. & ORS. AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri A.K.Sethi - Sr. Advocate with Ms.Astha Nagori- Advocate for
petitioner.
Shri Rajwardhan Gawde - GA for State.
ORDER
The petitioner is challenging the order of recovery dated 6.8.2004 of
Rs.84,320/- along with interest by respondent no.3.
Counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is a class III
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 the
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.
Learned counsel for the respondent/State submits that the recovery is
being sought to be made on the basis of an undertaking given by the
petitioner at the time of pay revision.
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:29579
2 WP-3031-2008
Upon perusal of the undertaking, which has been filed as Annexure
R/4 along with the reply, this Court finds that the undertaking is not of the
relevant period.
After hearing learned counsel for the parties, this Court finds that the
recovery on the ground of wrong pay fixation without there being any fault
of the employee or cheating or misrepresentation is erroneous in the light of
the following judgments:-
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
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:29579
3 WP-3031-2008
the employee, 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:-
''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 view of the aforesaid, the petition is allowed. The impugned
recovery order dated 6.8.2004 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.
(VIJAY KUMAR SHUKLA)
JUDGE
VM
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:29579
4 WP-3031-2008
