Madhya Pradesh High Court
Amritlal Khede vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh Through ... on 7 October, 2025
Author: Vijay Kumar Shukla
Bench: Vijay Kumar Shukla
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:29130
1 WP-6497-2025
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. 6497 of 2025
AMRITLAL KHEDE
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH THROUGH SECRETARY TO
THE GOVERNMENT OF TRIBAL AFFAIRS AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri L. C. Patne - Advocate for the petitioner.
Shri Kushagra Jain - Dy.GA for State.
ORDER
On 9.9.2025 this Court has passed the following order:-
"The petitioner has challenged the order dated 15.02.2010,
whereby, the petitioner has been furnished by withholding two
increments with cumulative effect.
The petitioner has also challenged the order dated 20.12.2021
(correct date is 20.12.2024), whereby, the petitioner has been
directed to deposit the excess payment of Rs.9,99,480/- towards
principal and Rs.4,41,536/- towards interest.
Learned counsel for the respondent raises preliminary objection
regarding the delay in respect of challenging the order dated
15.02.2010.
The petitioner has stated in column no.4 that the order dated
15.02.2010 was never implemented and therefore, the same has
sought to be implemented only by the order dated 20.12.2024 and
11.12.2024.
The explanation which has been given in column no.4 cannot be
a reasonable ground for condoning the delay and latches. The
order was passed in the year 2010 and the petition has been filed
in the year 2025. Non-implementation of an order cannot be a
ground for condoning the delay and latches.
It is not stated in the petition that the said order was never
communicated to the petitioner or it was not within his knowledge.
In view of the aforesaid, the challenge to the order dated
15.02.2010 is rejected on the ground of delay and latches.
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:29130
2 WP-6497-2025
Learned counsel for the petitioner argued that the recovery is
being sought of the order Annexure P/8 on the ground that the
same was paid erroneously despite the impugned order of
stoppage of increment.
He further argued that the petitioner has not been paid any of his
retiral claims because of the order of punishment.
Learned counsel for the respondent/state is granted two weeks
time to seek instructions in regard to the settlement of the retiral
dues of the petitioner
List on 07.10.2025.
Till then the recovery shall remain stayed in pursuant to the
impugned order."
Counsel for the petitioner argued that so far challenge to the order of
punishment of withholding two increments with cumulative effect dated
15.2.2010 is concerned, the petition has already been dismissed on the
ground of delay and latches. He argued that so far the recovery vide
Annexure P/8 on the ground that the same was paid erroneously despite the
impugned order of stoppage of increment cannot be effected in the light of
the judgment passed by the Apex Court in a number of cases.
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
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:29130
3 WP-6497-2025
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."
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 the aforesaid judgments, it has been held that if there is no fault on
the part of the employee, the amount cannot be recovered by the employer.
Counsel for petitioner further argued that because of the said order of
recovery, his retiral claims are not being settled and also not releasing arrears
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:29130
4 WP-6497-2025
of second and third time scale pay which was already sanctioned.
Counsel for the State, though argued but could not distinguish the
present case from the judgment passed by this court in a number of cases
where such recovery has been set aside.
After hearing learned counsel for parties and upon perusal of the
impugned order of recovery Annexure P/8, this Court finds that the recovery
is being made on the ground that, despite the order of punishment of
stoppage of increments, the petitioner was erroneously paid increments. In
this regard law is well settled.
In view of the aforesaid enunciation by the Apex Court, this Court
finds that in the present case, the order impugned does not indicate that there
was any misrepresentation, cheating on the part of the petitioner. The
recovery only on the ground that the petitioner was erroneously paid
increment despite punishment is not sustainable.
In view of the aforesaid, the impugned order of recovery, Annexure
P/8 is quashed. The benefit of second and third time scale pay and other
retiral dues shall be paid to the petitioner in accordance with law if there is
no legal impediment within a period of 60 days from the date of filing of the
copy of the order.
The petition is allowed.
(VIJAY KUMAR SHUKLA)
JUDGE
VM
