Madhya Pradesh High Court
Madhusingh Kanesh vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 10 October, 2025
Author: Vijay Kumar Shukla
Bench: Vijay Kumar Shukla
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:29835
1 WP-1726-2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT INDORE
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VIJAY KUMAR SHUKLA
ON THE 10th OF OCTOBER, 2025
WRIT PETITION No. 1726 of 2025
MADHUSINGH KANESH
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Daya Nath Pandey - Advocate for the petitioner.
Shri Romil Verma - G.A. for the respondent/State.
ORDER
The present petition has been filed challenging the recovery order
dated 02/01/2025 passed by Respondent No.3 directing the recovery to
the tune of Rs.8,50,500/- 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. It is submitted that the retiral dues of the
petitioner have been withheld by the respondents because of the
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:29835
2 WP-1726-2025
recovery.
3. 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.
4. Upon perusal of the undertaking, which has been filed as
Annexure R/1 along with the reply, this Court finds that the date
mentioned is not of the relevant period.
5. 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:-
6. 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
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:29835
3 WP-1726-2025
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)
7. 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:-
''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."
8. 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.
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:29835
4 WP-1726-2025
9. In view of the aforesaid, the petition is allowed. The impugned
recovery order dated 02/1/2025 is hereby quashed. Since, the recovery is
quashed, the respondents are directed to pay the retiral dues of the
petitioner in accordance with the law expeditiously within period of 60
days from the date of filing of copy of the order passed today.
10. Accordingly, present petition stands disposed of.
(VIJAY KUMAR SHUKLA)
JUDGE
PK
