Madhya Pradesh High Court
Raghuraj Singh vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 2 September, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:20106
1 WP-16518-2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT GWALIOR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE ASHISH SHROTI
ON THE 2 nd OF SEPTEMBER, 2025
WRIT PETITION No. 16518 of 2021
RAGHURAJ SINGH
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Raj Shrivastava - Advocate for the petitioner.
Ms. Monika Mishra- Panel Lawyer for the respondents/State.
ORDER
The petitioner is aggrieved by the action of the respondents in making
recovery of Rs. 4,38,870/- from the retiral dues of the petitioner.
[2]. The facts necessary for decision of this case are that the petitioner
was working as Assistant Grade-II in Govt. Shrimant Madhavrao Scindia
P.G. College Shivpuri. He retired on attaining the age of superannuation
w.e.f. 31.07.2021. After his retirement, the impugned order, dated
05.08.2021, came to be passed by Principal of College whereby the factum
of recovery was brought to his notice. As per the calculation chart filed at
page No.14 of the writ petition, it is gathered that out of total amount of
Rs.4,38,870/-, an amount of Rs.1,70,078/- is sought to be recovered towards
excess amount paid to the petitioner while Rs.2,68,792/- is being recovered
towards interest on the excess payment made.
[3]. Learned counsel for the petitioner, challenging the impugned
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:20106
2 WP-16518-2021
action of recovery, submitted that the recovery is not permissible after his
retirement in view of the judgment passed by Apex Court in the case of State
of Punjab & Ors. Vs. Rafiq Masih (White Washer) reported in (2015) 4 SCC
334. He further submits that the recovery is on account of benefit of
Krammonati earlier granted to the petitioner. It is his submission that even if
Krammonati is wrongly granted, the amount paid in excess could not be
recovered after retirement of the petitioner. Learned counsel for the
petitioner also submits that the recovery of huge amount of Rs.2,68,792/- is
impermissible inasmuch as the petitioner is admittedly not at fault.
[4]. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents supports
the impugned action of recovery and submitted that at the time of re-fixation
of petitioner's salary while implementing recommendations of 7th Pay
Commission, it came to the knowledge of the respondents that the
petitioner's salary was wrongly fixed while implementing recommendations
of 6th Pay Commission in the year 2009. She thus submits that since the
petitioner was not entitled to the higher amount which is paid to him, the
respondents are justified in recovering the excess amount paid to him. She
further submits that at the time of implementation of 6th Pay Commission
Recommendation, the petitioner has submitted undertaking on 17.07.2009
(Annexure R/2) and, therefore, the petitioner is bound by the undertaking
given by him. She placed reliance upon the full Bench judgment of this Court
rendered in the case of State of Madhya Pradesh Vs. Jagdish Prasad Dubey
(Writ Appeal No.815 of 2017 decided on 6.3.2024) as also Apex Court
judgment in the case of High Court of Punjab & Haryana Vs. Jagdev
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:20106
3 WP-16518-2021
Singh reported in (2016) 14 SCC 267.
[5]. Considered the arguments and perused the record.
[6]. The Full Bench judgment of this Court in the case of Jagdish
Prasad Dubey (supra) has deal with the similar issue and has held in
paragraph-35 as under;
"35.(a) Question No.1 is answered by holding that recovery can be
effected from the pensionary benefits or from the salary based on
the undertaking or the indemnity bond given by the employee
before the grant of benefit of pay refixation. The question of
hardship of a Government servant has to be taken note of in
pursuance to the judgment passed by the Larger Bench of the
Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Syed Abdul Qadir (supra).
The time period as fixed in the case of Rafiq Masih (supra)
reported in (2015) 4 SCC 334 requires to be followed. Conversely
an undertaking given at the stage of payment of retiral dues with
reference to the refixation of pay or increments done decades ago
cannot be enforced.
(b) Question No.2 is answered by holding that recovery can be
made towards the excess payment made in terms of Rules 65 and
66 of the Rules of 1976 provided that the entire procedures as
contemplated in Chapter VIII of the Rules of 1976 are followed by
the employer. However, no recovery can be made in pursuance to
Rule 65 of the Rules of 1976 towards revision of pay which has
been extended to a Government servant much earlier. In such
cases, recovery can be made in terms of the answer to Question
No.1.
(c) Question No.3 is answered by holding that the undertaking
given by the employee at the time of grant of financial benefits on
account of refixation of pay is a forced undertaking and is
therefore not enforceable in the light of the judgment of the
Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Central Inland Water
Transport Corporation Limited (supra) unless the undertaking is
given voluntarily."
[7]. Further the Apex Court has considered the effect of execution of
undertaking by the employee in the case of Jagdev Singh (supra) and has
held in para-11 as under.
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:20106
4 WP-16518-2021
"11. The principle enunciated in proposition (ii) above cannot
apply to a situation such as in the present case. In the present
case, the officer to whom the payment was made in the first
instance was clearly placed on notice that any payment found
to have been made in excess would be required to be
refunded. The officer furnished an undertaking while opting
for the revised pay scale. He is bound by the undertaking."
[8]. Thus, in view of specific direction issued by Full Bench in
paragraph-35(a) and in paragraph-11 by the Apex Court judgment in the case
o f Jagdev Singh (supra), the respondents are competent to recover the
amount paid in excess to the petitioner based upon the undertaking given by
him.
[9]. The another issue raised by counsel for the petitioner is regarding
recovery of amount towards interest on the excess amount paid. Admittedly,
there is no misrepresentation or mistake on the part of petitioner in wrong
fixation of his salary. The mistake is on the part of Government Officials,
therefore, the petitioner cannot be penalized to pay the huge amount of
interest on the alleged excess amount. Hence, the direction to recover
Rs.2,68,792/- towards interest cannot be permitted.
[10]. In view of the aforesaid, the petition is partly allowed. The
direction of respondents to recover Rs.2,68,792/- towards interest is set-
aside.
[11]. At this stage, counsel for the petitioner submits that even
calculation of Rs.1,70,078/- also incorrect and the petitioner is liable to pay
lessor amount. If that be so, the petitioner is at liberty to point-out the
calculation mistake to the Competent Authority, if he does so, the Competent
Authority shall consider and take a decision in this regard.
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:20106
5 WP-16518-2021
[12]. In other words, the respondents are held entitled to recover only
the excess amount from the petitioner.
[13]. In case the retiral dues of the petitioner are not yet settled, the
same be settled taking into account the aforesaid directions issued in this
order, within a period of 90 days from the date of submission of certified
copy of this order.
[14]. With the aforesaid, the petition stands disposed of.
(ASHISH SHROTI)
JUDGE
vpn/-
