Madhya Pradesh High Court
Mansingh vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 7 October, 2025
Author: Vijay Kumar Shukla
Bench: Vijay Kumar Shukla
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:29119
1 WP-9579-2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT INDORE
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VIJAY KUMAR SHUKLA
ON THE 7 th OF OCTOBER, 2025
WRIT PETITION No. 9579 of 2025
MANSINGH
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Ms.Ranjana Gawade - Advocate for the petitioner.
Shri Kushagra Jain - Dy.GA for State.
ORDER
The petitioner is a retired government servant who retired on
31.7.2024 from the post of Peon. The petitioner is challenging the order
dated 19.12.2024 by which a recovery of an amount of Rs.2,47,924/- after
retirement from gratuity has been directed to be recovered.
The respondents have filed the reply and it is stated that the recovery is
being made on the ground that the petitioner has wrongly been granted
excess payment.
Counsel for the petitioner argued that the aforesaid recovery on the
said ground of erroneous payment is not legal in view of the judgment
passed by the Apex Court and this Court.
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
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:29119
2 WP-9579-2025
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
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."
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:29119
3 WP-9579-2025
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.
After hearing learned counsel for parties and taking into consideration
the aforesaid judgments, this Court finds that the issue involved in the
present case that whether a recovery from a retired government servant can
be effected on the ground of erroneous excess payment, is no longer res
integra.
In view of the aforesaid, the impugned order of recovery Annexure
P/1 dated 19.12.2024 is quashed. The respondents are directed to refund the
amount recovered from the petitioner with 6% interest from the date of the
amount due till the same is repaid to the petitioner within a period of 60 days
from the date of filing of a copy of the order passed today. If the amount is
not refunded within 60 days, the amount shall carry 9% interest.
With the aforesaid, the petition is allowed and disposed of.
(VIJAY KUMAR SHUKLA)
JUDGE
VM
