[Cites 5, Cited by 0]
Madhya Pradesh High Court
Shri Omprakash Sathe vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 4 February, 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:3578
1 WP-787-2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT INDORE
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE JAI KUMAR PILLAI
ON THE 4 th OF FEBRUARY, 2026
WRIT PETITION No. 787 of 2026
SHRI OMPRAKASH SATHE
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Ms. Sumanlata Tamrakar, counsel for the petitioner.
Ms. Swati Ukhale, counsel for the respondents/State.
ORDER
With the consent of both the parties, heard finally.
This instant petition has been filed by the petitioner under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India, by which the petitioner is assailing the impugned recovery
order dated 15.03.2017, wherein an amount of Rs.93,043/- has been recovered
from the gratuity of pension of the petitioner on the ground that the excess payment
was paid to the petitioner due to wrong fixation of pay. The same has been
reflected from the page 13 of the order, wherein the District Pension Officer has
endorsed the said recovery.
2. The case of the petitioner is that he superannuated on 31.07.2016 and the
impugned recovery order has been passed by the respondents on 15.03.2017, after
the retirement of petitioner, which is bad in law.
3. Counsel for the petitioner submits that the the recovery from the petitioner
cannot be made as there is no misrepresentation or fraud committed by the
petitioner in fixation of pay. He has relied on the judgment passed by the Apex
Court in the case of Shyam Babu Verma Vs. Union of India, 1994(2) SCC 521,
Sahib Ram Vs. State of Haryana, 1995 Supp (1) SCC 18, Chandi Prasad Uniyal
Vs. State of Uttarakhand, (2012) 8 SCC 417 and Syed Abdul Kadir Vs. State of
Bihar, (2009) 3 SCC 475 and Yogeshwar Prasad Vs. National Institute of
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:3578
2 WP-787-2026
Education Planning, (2010) 14 SCC 323.
4. Counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is a retired Government
Servant and the recovery on account of erroneous pay fixation cannot be made in
light of the judgment passed by the Apex Court in the case of State of Punjab Vs.
Rafiq Masih (2015) 4 SCC 334 and other judgments. It is further submitted that
there is no fraud or misrepresentation on behalf of the petitioner.
5. The Full Bench of this Court at Principal Seat, Jabalpur in identical matters
has quashed such recovery orders by judgment dated 06.03.2024 passed in Writ
Appeal No.815 of 2017 (State of Madhya Pradesh & Anr. vs. Jagdish Prasad
Dubey & Anr.) and connected writ petitions reported in 2024 SCC OnLine MP
1567, it has been held in paragraph No.35 as under :-
"Answers to the questions referred 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 and Another vs.
Brojo Nath Ganguly and Another, reported in (1986) 3 SCC 136 unless
the undertaking is given voluntarily."
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:3578
3 WP-787-2026
6. In view of the aforesaid, answer of the full Bench the recovery on the basis of
an undertaking/indemnity bond the recovery cannot be made on the earlier fixation
of pay. Apart from that the recovery of the excess amount paid as salary cannot be
recovered from a retired Government Servant. Admittedly in the present case
procedure for recovery prescribed under Rule 65 and 66 of Chapter VIII of M.P.
Civil Services Pension Rules, 1976 are not followed.
7. In view of the above, the impugned recovery order is hereby quashed. The
amount, if any, recovered from the petitioner be refunded to him, from the date of
recovery till the date of payment. Let the same be done within a period of sixty
days (60 days) from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. The pay
fixation of the petitioner is however maintained.
8. With the aforesaid observation, this petition stands allowed and disposed of.
9. Certified copy, as per Rules.
(JAI KUMAR PILLAI)
JUDGE
Arun/-
