Madhya Pradesh High Court
Vijay Kumar Shrivastava vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 19 September, 2025
1 WP-892-2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VIVEK JAIN
ON THE 19th OF SEPTEMBER, 2025
WRIT PETITION No. 13167 of 2024
ALOK KUMAR YADAV
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
WITH
WRIT PETITION No. 15938 of 2015
SMT. REKHA KASHIKAR
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
WRIT PETITION No. 6958 of 2016
D.D. VAISHNAV (DEAD) THROUGH LRS SMT. NAMITA VAISHNAV
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
WRIT PETITION No. 7306 of 2016
PRADEEP KUMAR DEY
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
WRIT PETITION No. 12366 of 2016
MOHD. HUSSAIN KHAN
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: ARVIND KUMAR
MISHRA
Signing time: 23-09-2025
12:14:46
2 WP-892-2024
WRIT PETITION No. 15056 of 2016
RAMESH KUMAR CHOUHAN AND OTHERS
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
WRIT PETITION No. 18754 of 2016
DIWAKAR PRASAD PANDEY AND OTHERS
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
WRIT PETITION No. 8170 of 2017
SMT. RACHNA AGNIHOTRI
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
WRIT PETITION No. 15438 of 2017
SMT. SAVITA DEVI
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
WRIT PETITION No. 6775 of 2018
SMT. INDRA PANDEY
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
WRIT PETITION No. 6781 of 2018
CHANDRA GOPAL SAHU
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
WRIT PETITION No. 11377 of 2018
DHANANJAY KUMAR UPADHYAY
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: ARVIND KUMAR
MISHRA
Signing time: 23-09-2025
12:14:46
3 WP-892-2024
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
WRIT PETITION No. 12628 of 2018
BALBIR SINGH TOMAR
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
WRIT PETITION No. 12629 of 2018
SHYAM LAL VISHWAKARMA
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
WRIT PETITION No. 23811 of 2018
SMT. SUMAN MALI
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
WRIT PETITION No. 578 of 2020
SMT. ALKA DUBEY
Versus
THE STATE OF M.P. AND OTHERS
WRIT PETITION No. 997 of 2020
GOVIND PRASAD GUPTA
Versus
STATE OF MP AND OTHERS
WRIT PETITION No. 1655 of 2020
LADU LAL GAWARI
Versus
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: ARVIND KUMAR
MISHRA
Signing time: 23-09-2025
12:14:46
4 WP-892-2024
STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
WRIT PETITION No. 7101 of 2020
BHUJRAM JAT
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
WRIT PETITION No. 15033 of 2020
SMT. SUMITRA YADAV
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
WRIT PETITION No. 16794 of 2020
GHANSHYAM BATHAM
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
WRIT PETITION No. 9285 of 2021
LAHARI LAL DAVE
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
WRIT PETITION No. 11025 of 2021
CHANDRA PRAKASH SHARMA
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
WRIT PETITION No. 3998 of 2022
MADHAV PRASAD JOSHI
Versus
STATE OF M.P. AND OTHERS
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: ARVIND KUMAR
MISHRA
Signing time: 23-09-2025
12:14:46
5 WP-892-2024
WRIT PETITION No. 12576 of 2022
BRIJESH KUMAR TIWARI
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
WRIT PETITION No. 29717 of 2022
SUBEDAR SINGH
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
WRIT PETITION No. 20020 of 2023
SMT. MANJU MISHRA
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
WRIT PETITION No. 27183 of 2023
ALOK NIGAM
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
WRIT PETITION No. 892 of 2024
VIJAY KUMAR SHRIVASTAVA
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
WRIT PETITION No. 3612 of 2024
MUKESH SINGH CHOUHAN
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: ARVIND KUMAR
MISHRA
Signing time: 23-09-2025
12:14:46
6 WP-892-2024
WRIT PETITION No. 6881 of 2024
MRADUL TRIPATHI
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
WRIT PETITION No. 12561 of 2024
SMT. RAJINI GOHIRA
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
WRIT PETITION No. 13758 of 2024
RAMESH CHANDRA GOUR
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
WRIT PETITION No. 13942 of 2024
SMT. ANITA BASNET
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
WRIT PETITION No. 13943 of 2024
RAJESH KUMAR MISHRA
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
WRIT PETITION No. 14007 of 2024
REKHAN SINGH SATNAMI
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: ARVIND KUMAR
MISHRA
Signing time: 23-09-2025
12:14:46
7 WP-892-2024
WRIT PETITION No. 14878 of 2024
SMT. SUSHILA SISODHIYA
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
WRIT PETITION No. 15024 of 2024
SUNIL KUMAR SADAPHAL
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
WRIT PETITION No. 16291 of 2024
ABDUL AZIZ
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
WRIT PETITION No. 16848 of 2024
MISS RAJ LAXMI VERMA
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
WRIT PETITION No. 16989 of 2024
GANPAT RAO BHALEKAR
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
WRIT PETITION No. 16998 of 2024
JAISHEELA MESHRAM
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
WRIT PETITION No. 17006 of 2024
SMT. NIRMALA VERMA
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: ARVIND KUMAR
MISHRA
Signing time: 23-09-2025
12:14:46
8 WP-892-2024
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
WRIT PETITION No. 17009 of 2024
RAMESH KUMAR SHUKLA
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
WRIT PETITION No. 18102 of 2024
SMT. NEETA NATHANI
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
WRIT PETITION No. 19980 of 2024
ASHOK KUMAR SAHU
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
WRIT PETITION No. 20712 of 2024
BHAILAAL SINGH
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
WRIT PETITION No. 24571 of 2024
DAYASHANKAR MISHRA
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
WRIT PETITION No. 28494 of 2024
MAHESH KUMAR AGAL
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: ARVIND KUMAR
MISHRA
Signing time: 23-09-2025
12:14:46
9 WP-892-2024
WRIT PETITION No. 30303 of 2024
ANIL DUBE
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
WRIT PETITION No. 33508 of 2024
SMT. RAJKUMARI HIMTHANI
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
WRIT PETITION No. 35301 of 2024
PRANVIR SINGH YADAV
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
WRIT PETITION No. 35846 of 2024
SMT. BINA MEHTA
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
WRIT PETITION No. 36276 of 2024
SHIV PRASAD DUBEY
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
WRIT PETITION No. 36283 of 2024
KRISHNA KUMAR PANDEY
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
WRIT PETITION No. 37108 of 2024
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: ARVIND KUMAR
MISHRA
Signing time: 23-09-2025
12:14:46
10 WP-892-2024
SMT. KALPANA DESAI
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
WRIT PETITION No. 4994 of 2025
PRADEEP KUMAR GUPTA
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
WRIT PETITION No. 4995 of 2025
JAGDISH PRASAD PATHAK
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
WRIT PETITION No. 10320 of 2025
RAJKISHORE RAIKWAR
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
WRIT PETITION No. 12202 of 2025
MOTILAL YADAV
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
WRIT PETITION No. 12528 of 2025
JAGDISH PRASAD PATHAK
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
WRIT PETITION No. 20815 of 2025
MOHAMMAD ASLAM
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: ARVIND KUMAR
MISHRA
Signing time: 23-09-2025
12:14:46
11 WP-892-2024
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
WRIT PETITION No. 20823 of 2025
D.R. S. YADAV
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
WRIT PETITION No. 21249 of 2025
ASHOK KUMAR DUBEY
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
WRIT PETITION No. 21528 of 2025
SMT. ANITA CHOUDHARI
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
WRIT PETITION No. 24926 of 2025
SUREKHA SHEJWAL
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Atul Kumar Rai- Advocate for the petitioner.
Shri Ajay Ojha- Government Advocate for the respondent-State.
ORDER
Heard on I.A. No. 8744/2025, which is an application for bringing the
legal representatives of deceased petitioner on record in WP No. 17009 of
2024.
12 WP-892-2024
2. On due consideration, the application is allowed and the LRs are
permitted to be taken on record. Let the necessary correction in the case title
be carried out in three working days.
3. Also heard on office objection in WP 6775 of 2018, in the
matter of non-incorporation of names of legal representatives of deceased
petitioner despite order dated 25.11.2024.
4. Let the names of legal representatives be incorporated in cause
title within three working days. Office objection is disposed off.
5. Heard all cases on merits.
6. These petitions are filed by serving or retired ministerial
employees of Police and they challenge the Orders of recovery issued either
before retirement or at time of or after retirement and were working on the
posts of Constable (M), Head Constable (M), Assistant Sub-Inspector (M),
Sub-Inspector (M) or Subedar (M), and were all part of the Ministerial
Establishment in the M.P. Police Force. They have been visited with
recovery in terms of withdrawal of benefit of Rs. 70/- basic pay which was
erroneously granted to them by granting parity with Executive members of
Police Force, in accordance with M.P. Revision of Pay Rules, 1983 to which
the ministerial employees were subsequently not held entitled by a Judgment
of this Court which was confirmed upto Hon'ble Apex Court. The recovery
in some cases includes principal amount as well as interest on the principal
amount, while in some cases, at earlier point of time, the recovery of interest
part stands set aside by this Court.
13 WP-892-2024
7. It is contended that initially various other Ministerial employees
had filed writ petitions before this court and recovery ordered from the
similarly situated employees was set aside only as to the interest part and not
for the principal part. Thereafter in various other cases, the Coordinate
Benches of this Court have set aside the recovery from Ministerial
employees of the police for the principal part also even after considering the
affect of judgment of the Supreme Court in case of S.H. Baig and Others Vs.
State of M.P. and Others (Civil Appeal No.9888-9899 of 2018) . This was
ordered in W.P. No.19539/2020 (Umakanti Parihar Vs. State of M.P. and
Others) by the Gwalior Bench of this Court.
8. Subsequently, another Coordinate Bench of this Court in W.P.
No.2629/2021 (Tehsildar Singh Vs. State of M.P. and Others) has also
quashed the recovery of principal as well as interest part of Ministerial
employees of the police.
9 . In W.P. No.2629 of 2021, the Coordinate Bench of this Court has
passed the following order:-
"Petitioners have filed these writ petitions challenging
their respective orders of recovery, whereby certain amount has
been directed to be recovered from them towards amount paid in
excess on account of certain benefits granted to them
erroneously. The amount of recovery also includes the interest
on the excess amount paid.
2. The petitioner in W.P. No.2649/2021 (Om Prakash
Singh Sikarwar) was initially appointed as Assistant Sub
Inspector (M). In course of time, he was promoted to the post of
Sub Inspector (M), Accountant and then ultimately as Head
Clerk/Subedar (M). He retired on attaining the age of
superannuation w.e.f. 31/8/2015. Since, there was some dispute
14 WP-892-2024
pending with regard to anomaly in fixation of his salary, this
petitioner was initially sanctioned anticipatory pension. The
respondents vide order dated 13/5/2020 (Annexure P/3) revised
his pay-scale in view of judgment of Apex Court in the case of
S.H. Baig & Ors. Vs. State of M.P. & Ors. reported in (2018)10
SCC 621 and consequently, also revised his anticipatory pension
vide order dated 14/7/2029 (Annexure P/4). Later on, the
impugned order was passed on 2/11/2020 (Annexure P/1)
whereby an amount of Rs.28,17,508/- has been directed to be
recovered from the petitioner which includes an amount of
Rs.15,64,163/- towards the excess amount paid and
Rs.12,53,345/- is directed to be recovered towards interest.
3. The petitioner in W.P. No. 2646/2021 (Keshav Singh)
was appointed as Assistant Sub Inspector (M) on 15/10/1984 and
he retired from service w.e.f. 30/6/2016. His anticipatory pension
was also revised vide order dated 13/5/2020 (Annexure P/3) and
his pension was revised vide order dated 14/7/2020 (Annexure
P/4). The respondents vide order dated 1/9/2020 (Annexure P/1)
directed recovery of an amount of Rs.20,60,641/- out of which
Rs.11,40,066/- was to be recovered towards excess payment
while Rs.9,20,576/- was directed to be recovered towards
interest.
4. Likewise, the petition in W.P. No.2629/2021
(Tehsildar Singh) was initially appointed as Daftari on 2/8/1965
and was later on re-designated as Head Constable (M). He retired
from service on attaining the age of superannuation w.e.f.
31/8/2009. Like others, his salary was also revised vide order
dated 22/6/2020 (Annexure P/3) while his pension was revised
vide order dated 14/7/2020 (Annexure P/4). The recovery of an
amount of Rs.11,85,707/- was directed against him, out of which
Rs.6,73,729/- was to be recovered towards excess amount paid to
him while Rs.5,11,978/- was to be recovered towards interest.
5. The State Govt. created new Police Ranks (Ministerial)
in the State Police Force under Section 2 of the Police Act, 1861.
The Ministerial employees though equated with executive posts,
but it was decided to continue to draw emoluments in their
existing pay scales or as may be revised from time to time. This
gave rise to litigation filed before erstwhile State Administrative
Tribunal and ultimately travelled upto Apex Court and was
decided by Apex Court in the case of S.H. Baig (supra). After the
decision of Apex Court in S.H. Baig case, the action was taken
by the respondents to re-fix the salary of the ministerial
employees which has resulted into impugned recovery. It be
noted that by the time impugned recovery orders were passed,
the petitioners already retired from service on attaining the age of
superannuation.
15 WP-892-2024
6. The respondents have re-fixed the salary/pension of the
petitioners and have also passed separate orders directing
recovery of excess amount together with interest. The petitioners
have not challenged the orders of refixation of their
salary/pension. Meaning thereby, they have accepted the factum
of wrong fixation and consequent revision of their
salary/pension. The issue is, therefore, only about the recovery of
the excess amount from them after retirement.
7. The learned counsel for the petitioners placed reliance
upon the Full Bench decision of this Court in the case of State of
Madhya Pradesh & others Vs. Jagdish Prasad Dubey reported in
2024(2) M.P.L.J. 198 as also Apex Court decision in the case of
State of Punjab Vs. Rafiq Masih (White Washer) reported in
(2015)4 SCC 334 and submitted that even if the amount was
paid to petitioners in excess, the same cannot be recovered from
the petitioners after their retirement. He also submitted that the
hardships being faced by the petitioners is also required to be
looked into. He, therefore, submitted that impugned recovery
from the retiral dues of petitioners, is not sustainable and liable to
be quashed. Alternatively, he also submitted that since the
petitioners were not responsible for wrong fixation, the amount
towards interest cannot be recovered from them.
8. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State
justified the impugned recovery and submitted that after the
judgment of the Apex Court in the case of S.H. Baig (supra), the
respondents reconsidered the cases of all the employees and re-
fixed their salary/pension. The petitioners were not entitled to
amount at higher rate. The excess amount paid to such
employees, on account of erroneous fixation of their salary, is
required to be recovered from them. He submitted that, in similar
case, the High Court in the case of Smt. Sushma Tiwari Vs. State
of M.P. & Ors. passed in W.A. No.1760/2007 has upheld the
action of recovery of amount vide judgment dated 21/4/2011.
The learned counsel also relied upon the judgment passed by the
Apex Court in the case of State of Punjab & Haryana Vs. Jagdev
Singh reported in (2016)14 SCC 267. The learned counsel for the
State also placed reliance upon the orders passed by the
coordinate Benches of this Court in the case of Smt. Shiv Kumari
Kshetri & Ors. vs. State of M.P. & Ors. passed in W.P.
No.4445/2005, Rajedra Bhawsar Vs. State of M.P. & Ors. passed
in W.P. No.826/2017 and Smt. Sobha Jadhav Vs. State of M.P. &
Ors. passed in W.P. No.26972/2019.
9. The learned counsel for the State further submitted that
since the petitioners have submitted an indemnity bond, where
they have undertaken to refund the amount in case of excess
payment, they are bound by said undertaking and, therefore, now
16 WP-892-2024
they cannot dispute the recovery being made by the respondents.
10. Considered the arguments and perused the record.
11. The Full Bench of this Court has settled the issue of
recovery of the amount from the employee after his retirement in
the case of Jagdish Prasad Dubey (supra), wherein the Full
Bench has issued the following directions:- "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."
12. In view of aforesaid legal position, if the undertaking
furnished by petitioners in W.P. No.2629/2021 & W.P.
No.2646/2021 is seen, it is gathered that the undertaking has
been submitted at the time of retirement. Therefore, in view of
the directions issued by the Full Bench in para 35(a), such an
undertaking cannot be relied upon by the respondents to justify
the recovery which relates back to a long time ago during the
service tenure of the employee. Further, as observed by the Full
Bench, the hardship of the concerned employee is also required
to be looked into. These are the cases where petitioners were
working as ministerial staff of the Police Department. They have
retired long back in the year 2009, 2015 & 2016. The amount
directed to be recovered from them is also huge. The recovery of
amount from their retiral dues would certainly cause serious
17 WP-892-2024
hardship to the petitioners. So far as W.P. No.2649/2021 is
concerned, there is no undertaking filed on record by the
respondents.
13. As far as judgment of the Apex Court in the case of
Jagdev Singh (supra) is concerned, the Apex Court permitted
recovery from the employee therein in view of the undertaking
given by him. However, the undertaking in the present case
cannot be relied upon by respondents in view of subsequent Full
Bench decision of the High Court in the case of Jagdish Prasad
Dubey (supra). Therefore, the judgment rendered by the Apex
Court in the case of Jagdev Singh (supra) is of no help to the
respondents.
14. The other judgments relied upon by the counsel for
the respondents which are passed by the coordinate Benches of
this Court also relates to the period prior to the judgment of
Jagdish Prasad Dubey (supra) and are passed relying upon
Jagdev Singh . Thus, in view of subsequent Full Bench judgment
of this Court, the judgment passed by the coordinate Bench of
this Court are also of no help to the respondents.
15. The Apex Court decision in the case of Rafiq Masih
(supra), therefore, is also worth notable at this stage, wherein, in
para 18 Apex Court issued following directions:- "18. It is not
possible to postulate all situations of hardship, which would
govern employees on the issue of recovery, where payments have
mistakenly been made by the employer, in excess of their
entitlement. Be that as it may, based on the decisions referred to
herein above, we may, as a ready reference, summarise the
following few situations, wherein recoveries by the employers,
would be impermissible in law:
(i) Recovery from employees belonging to Class-III and
Class IV service (or Group 'C' and Group 'D' service).
(ii) Recovery from retired employees, or employees who
are due to retire within one year, of the order of recovery.
(iii) Recovery from employees, when the excess payment
has been made for a period in excess of five years, before the
order of recovery is issued.
(iv) Recovery in cases where an employee has wrongfully
been required to discharge duties of a higher post, and has been
paid accordingly, even though he should have rightfully been
required to work against an inferior post.
(v) In any other case, where the Court arrives at the
conclusion, that recovery if made from the employee, would be
18 WP-892-2024
iniquitous or harsh or arbitrary to such an extent, as would far
outweigh the equitable balance of the employer's right to
recover."
16. It is seen from the impugned orders that a huge
amount is sought to be recovered from the petitioners towards
interest. These are not the cases where the petitioners are held
responsible for erroneous fixation of the salary. Therefore, even
if for the sake of arguments it is presumed that respondents are
entitled to recover excess amount, the respondents cannot be
allowed to recover the interest from the petitioners.
17. In view of aforesaid discussion of facts and law,
particularly in view of the judgment of Full Bench of this Court
in the case of Jagdish Prasad Dubey (supra) and Apex Court
judgment in the case of Rafiq Masih (supra), the impugned
orders of recovery are not sustainable in law. The impugned
recovery orders in respect of each petitioner are accordingly
quashed. If any amount is recovered from the petitioners, the
same be refunded to them, alongwith interest @ 6% per annum
from the date of its recovery till actual payment.
18. All these three petitions are accordingly allowed and
disposed of."
10. The counsel for the State though has vehemently opposed the
petition but is not in a position to point out any distinguishing feature in the
present case.
11. Learned counsel for the State has raised objection that there is
undertaking in some cases. However, the undertakings which are in those
cases are subsequent undertakings and have not been taken at the time of
grant of the said erroneous benefit of basic pay of Rs. 70/- which was
granted as per Rule 7(1)(b)(iv) of M.P. Revision of Pay Rules 1963. The
dispute arose in matter of merging of the special pay in the revised pay scale
and seeking benefits at par with Executive members of Police Force. The
subsequent undertakings are therefore irrelevant for the purpose of present
recovery as there is no undertaking on record taken at the time of grant of
19 WP-892-2024
benefit as per Pay Revision Rules of 1983.
12. The other objection taken is that some petitioners filed writ
petitions and the interest part was set aside, therefore, they cannot now
challenge the Principal part. However, in the opinion of the Court since
subsequently, a Coordinate Bench of this has taken view that the principal
part also of the recovery cannot be made from the ministerial employees and
the said view has also been confirmed recently by the Division Bench in
W.A. No. 1657/2025 (State of M.P. & others vs. Ramrao Bhimte) , therefore,
the aforesaid objection would pale into insignificance. This is because the
State as an model employer is bound to maintain parity between same set of
employees.
13. Resultantly, the petition is allowed in similar terms as decided by
the Coordinate Bench of this Court in case of Tehsildar Singh (supra) and the
recovery of interest (if any) as well as principal part ordered to be recovered
from the petitioners in all these cases is hereby set aside. If any amount has
already been recovered, the same be refunded to the petitioners within a
period of four months from the date of production of certified copy of this
order, failing which the amount will carry interest @ 6% p.a. from the date
of this order till actual payment.
14. At this stage, counsel for the State submits that the State is in
process of filing an Special Leave Petition to challenge the order of the
Division Bench in Ramrao Bhimte (supra) , but admits that till date, the said
SLP has not been filed. If that be so, then in case the judgment of the
20 WP-892-2024
Division Bench in Ramrao Bhimte (supra) is stayed or set aside or modified
by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, then the same consequences shall befall on
these petitioners also in the matter of recovery of principal part of the
recovery, without the State having to challenge the individual orders.
However, the quashment of interest part shall remain unaffected.
15. Accordingly, in above terms, the petitions stand allowed and
disposed off.
(VIVEK JAIN)
JUDGE
MISHRA
