Madhya Pradesh High Court
Nianjan Tiwari vs Animal Husbandry And Dairy Farming ... on 15 October, 2025
Author: Vijay Kumar Shukla
Bench: Vijay Kumar Shukla
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:30253
1 WP-1291-2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT INDORE
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VIJAY KUMAR SHUKLA
ON THE 15th OF OCTOBER, 2025
WRIT PETITION No. 1291 of 2025
NIANJAN TIWARI
Versus
ANIMAL HUSBANDRY AND DAIRY FARMING DEPARTMENT AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Aviral Vikas Khare learned counsel for the petitioner.
Shri Shrey Raj Saxena, learned counsel for the respondent/state.
ORDER
The present petition has been filed challenging the recovery order passed by the
Respondent directing the recovery to the tune of Rs.2,83,628/- 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 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
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:30253
2 WP-1291-2025
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.''
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:-
''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 is
hereby quashed. The amount if recovered from the petitioner shall be refunded with 6%
interest from the date of recovery till the same is paid. Any claim of the petitioner
which is withheld because of the recovery order, the same shall also be considered and
granted to the petitioner in accordance with law.
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:30253
3 WP-1291-2025
Accordingly, present petition stands disposed of.
(VIJAY KUMAR SHUKLA)
JUDGE
Sourabh
