[Cites 11, Cited by 0]
Madhya Pradesh High Court
Bahadur Singh Raghuvanshi vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 19 February, 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:6597
1 WP-3923-2018
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT GWALIOR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE ANAND SINGH BAHRAWAT
ON THE 19th OF FEBRUARY, 2026
WRIT PETITION No. 3923 of 2018
BAHADUR SINGH RAGHUVANSHI
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Madhav Singh Rana - Advocate for the petitioner.
Ms. Smrati Sharma - Government Advocate for the respondent/State.
ORDER
This petition, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, has been
filed, seeking the following reliefs:-
"(1) Hence, it is humbly prayed that the petition of the petitioner
may kindly be allowed and the writ of certiorari or any other
suitable writ, order or direction as this Hon. Court may deem fit in
the facts and circumstances of the case, quashing the impugned
action of withdrawing the benefit of time scale of pay which was
granted to the petitioner under F.R. Rules for satisfactory work of
the petitioner and increments are granted on that basis, and
recovering the same from retiral dues with interest being illegal
and contrary to law.
(2) The respondents may kindly be directed to recalculate the
entire retiral dues and re-fixing the pension of the petitioner and
pension payment order may kindly be directed to be revised
accordingly;
(3) That, the respondents may kindly be directed to refund the
entire recovered amount from the petitioner with market rate of
interest;
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:6597
2 WP-3923-2018
(4) Any other relief which is just and proper may also be allowed;"
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner was
initially appointed on the post of Constable. He was promoted to the post of
Head Constable and again promoted to the post of ASI. Petitioner was retired
on attaining the age of superannuation on 30.06.2016 from the post of ASI.
Petitioner was extended the benefit of revision of pay rules from time to time
and the relevant entries are made in his service record. Thereafter, without
issuance of any show-cause notice, without affording any opportunity of
hearing and in clear violation of the principles of natural justice, recovery of
Rs.6,81,135/- has been initiated from the pension and retiral benefits of
petitioner. It is further submitted that the petitioner has neither
misrepresented any fact nor suppressed any material facts from the
respondents. The wrong pay fixation was carried out by the department, and
the petitioner is not at fault in any manner. The recovery cannot be initiated
after the retirement of the petitioner. Moreover, since the petitioner is a
Class-III employee, such recovery is impermissible in view of the judgment
of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in State of Punjab & Ors. v. Rafiq Masih
(White Washer), reported in (2015) 4 SCC 334.
3 . Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent/State submits that
when the petitioner superannuated then the petitioner's case was sent to
District Pension Officer District Guna, who raised the objections and
intimated the objections vide memo dated 10.08.2016. The Superintendent of
Police, District Guna rectified the mistake and issued the order dated
19.09.2016 reflecting the pay to which the petitioner was entitled from
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:6597
3 WP-3923-2018
01.01.2006 up to date of retirement including the imposition of departmental
penalty. It is further submitted that the service book reflected that the
recovery has to be made from 01.01.2006 for excess payment and since there
is endorsement in the service book regarding stoppage of one increment with
non cumulative effect. This entry in the service book is on the date
21.07.2009, therefore, treasury has also endorsed in the service book that the
penalty order was not executed. Thereafter, different amount as per recovery
chart (Annexure R/4) has been made against the petitioner.
4. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
5. When the petitioner superannuated, his case was forwarded to the
District Pension Officer, District Guna, who raised certain objections and
communicated the same vide memo dated 10.08.2016. Thereafter, the
Superintendent of Police, District Guna rectified the error and issued an
order dated 19.09.2016, reflecting the pay to which the petitioner was
entitled from 01.01.2006 up to the date of retirement, including the effect of
the departmental penalty imposed upon him. The service book indicated that
recovery was to be made from 01.01.2006 on account of excess payment.
Since there was an endorsement in the service book regarding stoppage of
one increment with non-cumulative effect, and the said entry was recorded
on 21.07.2009, the Treasury also endorsed in the service book that the
penalty order had not been executed. Thereafter, a different amount, as per
the recovery chart (Annexure R/4), was recovered from the petitioner.
6. So far as the issue with regard to recovery of excess amount on
account of wrong fixation of salary is concerned, the same was considered
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:6597
4 WP-3923-2018
by the Full Bench of this Court in the case of State of Madhya Pradesh Vs.
Jagdish Prasad Dubey (Writ Appeal No.815 of 2017) , wherein the Court has
held 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. Thus, in view of the Full Bench judgment, the indemnity bond being
relied upon by the respondents executed at the time of his retirement is of no
consequence, inasmuch as the recovery in question relates back to year 2006
and 2009.
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:6597
5 WP-3923-2018
8. Further, the Apex Court in the case of Rafiq Masih (Supra) has dealt
with the similar issue and held as under :
"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 iniquitous or
harsh or arbitrary to such an extent, as would far outweigh the
equitable balance of the employer's right to recover."
9. Considering the aforesaid judgment of the Full Bench of this Court
and the Apex Court, the impugned recovery so far as it relates to payment of
excess amount on account of wrong fixation of petitioner's salary is found to
be unsustainable in law.
10. So far as the recovery of amount on account of non-
implementation of the punishment order is concerned, the similar issue was
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:6597
6 WP-3923-2018
considered by this Court in the case of Ravi Shanker Mishra vs. State of
M.P. & ors. passed in W.P. No.13007/2023 . As the petitioner's counsel in
this case, in that case also heavy reliance was placed upon the Apex Court
judgment in the case of Rafiq Masih (supra). This Court dealt with the
judgment of Rafiq Masih in extenso and held as under:
"7. From the facts stated in para 2 of judgment of Rafiq Masih,
it is evident that the fact that the employees were not guilty of
furnishing any incorrect information, which led the competent
authority to commit mistake of making a higher payment to the
employees, was admitted in the bunch of those cases. The Apex
Court has made following observations in paragraphs 6, 7, 10, 12
& 15:-
6. In view of the conclusions extracted hereinabove, it will be our
endeavour, to lay down the parameters of fact situations, wherein
employees, who are beneficiaries of wrongful monetary gains at
the hands of the employer, may not be compelled to refund the
same. In our considered view, the instant benefit cannot extend to
an employee merely on account of the fact, that he was not an
accessory to the mistake committed by the employer; or merely
because the employee did not furnish any factually incorrect
information, on the basis whereof the employer committed the
mistake of paying the employee more than what was rightfully due
to him; or for that matter, merely because the excessive payment
was made to the employee, in absence of any fraud or
misrepresentation at the behest of the employee.
7. Having examined a number of judgments rendered by this
Court, we are of the view, that orders passed by the employer
seeking recovery of monetary benefits wrongly extended to the
employees, can only be interfered with, in cases where such
recovery would result in a hardship of a nature, which would far
outweigh, the equitable balance of the employer's right to recover.
In other words, interference would be called for, only in such
cases where, it would be iniquitous to recover the payment made.
In order to ascertain the parameters of the above consideration,
and the test to be applied, reference needs to be made to situations
when this Court exempted employees from such recovery, even in
exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 142 of the Constitution of
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:6597
7 WP-3923-2018
India. Repeated exercise of such power, "for doing complete
justice in any cause" would establish that the recovery being
effected was iniquitous, and therefore, arbitrary. And accordingly,
the interference at the hands of this Court.
xxx xxx xxx xxx
10. In view of the aforestated constitutional mandate, equity and
good conscience in the matter of livelihood of the people of this
country has to be the basis of all governmental actions. An action
of the State, ordering a recovery from an employee, would be in
order, so long as it is not rendered iniquitous to the extent that the
action of recovery would be more unfair, more wrongful, more
improper, and more unwarranted, than the corresponding right of
the employer, to recover the amount. Or in other words, till such
time as the recovery would have a harsh and arbitrary effect on the
employee, it would be permissible in law. Orders passed in given
situations repeatedly, even in exercise of the power vested in this
Court under Article 142 of the Constitution of India, will disclose
the parameters of the realm of an action of recovery (of an excess
amount paid to an employee) which would breach the obligations
of the State, to citizens of this country, and render the action
arbitrary, and therefore, violative of the mandate contained in
Article 14 of the Constitution of India.
xxx xxx xxx xxx
12. Reference may first of all be made to the decision in Syed
Abdul Qadir v. State of Bihar [Syed Abdul Qadir v. State of Bihar,
(2009) 3 SCC 475: (2009) 1 SCC (L&S) 744], wherein this Court
recorded the following observation in para 58: (SCC p. 491)
"58. The relief against recovery is granted by courts not because
of any right in the employees, but in equity, exercising judicial
discretion to relieve the employees from the hardship that will be
caused if recovery is ordered. But, if in a given case, it is proved
that the employee had knowledge that the payment received was in
excess of what was due or wrongly paid, or in cases where the
error is detected or corrected within a short time of wrong
payment, the matter being in the realm of judicial discretion,
courts may, on the facts and circumstances of any particular case,
order for recovery of the amount paid in excess. See Sahib Ram v.
State of Haryana [Sahib Ram v. State of Haryana, 1995 Supp (1)
SCC 18: 1995 SCC (L&S) 248], Shyam Babu Verma v. Union of
India [Shyam Babu Verma v. Union of India, (1994) 2 SCC 521:
1994 SCC (L&S) 683 : (1994) 27 ATC 121], Union of India v. M.
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:6597
8 WP-3923-2018
Bhaskar [(1996) 4 SCC 416 1996 SCC (L&S) 967], V. Gangaram
v. Director [(1997) 6 SCC 139: 1997 SCC (L&S) 1652], B.J.
Akkara v. Govt. of India [B.J. Akkara v. Govt. of India, (2006) 11
SCC 709: (2007) 1 SCC (L&S) 529], Purshottam Lal Das v. State
of Bihar [(2006) 11 SCC 492: (2007) 1 SCC (L&S) 508], Punjab
National Bank v. Manjeet Singh [(2006) 8 SCC 647: (2007) 1
SCC (L&S) 16] and Bihar SEB v. Bijay Bhadur [(2000) 10 SCC
99: 2000 SCC (L&S) 394] ."
xxx xxx xxx xxx
15. Examining a similar proposition, this Court in B.J. Akkara v.
Govt. of India [B.J. Akkara v. Govt. of India, (2006) 11 SCC 709:
(2007) 1 SCC (L&S) 529] observed as under: (SCC pp. 728-29,
para 28)
"28. Such relief, restraining back recovery of excess
payment, is granted by courts not because of any right
in the employees, but in equity, in exercise of judicial
discretion to relieve the employees from the hardship
that will be caused if recovery is implemented. A
government servant, particularly one in the lower rungs
of service would spend whatever emoluments he
receives for the upkeep of his family. If he receives an
excess payment for a long period, he would spend it,
genuinely believing that he is entitled to it. As any
subsequent action to recover the excess payment will
cause undue hardship to him, relief is granted in that
behalf. But where the employee had knowledge that the
payment received was in excess of what was due or
wrongly paid, or where the error is detected or corrected
within a short time of wrong payment, courts will not
grant relief against recovery. The matter being in the
realm of judicial discretion, courts may on the facts and
circumstances of any particular case refuse to grant
such relief against recovery."
(emphasis supplied)
A perusal of the aforesaid observations made by this
Court in B.J. Akkara case [B.J. Akkara v. Govt. of
India, (2006) 11 SCC 709 : (2007) 1 SCC (L&S) 529]
reveals a reiteration of the legal position recorded in the
earlier judgments rendered by this Court, inasmuch as,
it was again affirmed, that the right to recover would be
sustainable so long as the same was not iniquitous or
arbitrary.
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:6597
9 WP-3923-2018
In the observation extracted above, this Court also
recorded, that recovery from the employees in lower
rung of service, would result in extreme hardship to
them. The apparent explanation for the aforesaid
conclusion is, that the employees in lower rung of
service would spend their entire earnings in the upkeep
and welfare of their family, and if such excess payment
is allowed to be recovered from them, it would cause
them far more hardship, than the reciprocal gains to the
employer. We are therefore satisfied in concluding, that
such recovery from employees belonging to the lower
rungs (i.e. Class III and Class IV-sometimes denoted as
Group C and Group D) of service, should not be
subjected to the ordeal of any recovery, even though
they were beneficiaries of receiving higher emoluments,
than were due to them. Such recovery would be
iniquitous and arbitrary and therefore would also breach
the mandate contained in Article 14 of the Constitution
of India."
8. Considering the aforesaid observations of the Apex Court, it
comes out that the right of Govt. to recover excess amount was
denied not because of any right in favour of the employee but
based purely upon equity. The interference in such matters is made
only because the hardship suffered by employee is comparatively
more than the one suffered by employer. Thus, in view of
aforequoted observations of Apex Court, the recovery of excess
amount is to be allowed in normal circumstances unless the same
is found to be iniquitous to the extent that the action of recovery
would be more unfair, more wrongful, more improper and more
unwarranted, than the corresponding right of employer to recover
the amount. The Apex Court has also observed that where the
employee was aware about the fact that he is being the paid the
excess amount and still he continues to draw the excess amount,
the equity would not fall in his favour. Thus, the issue as to
whether the recovery is to be allowed or not would depend upon
the fact of individual case.
9. In view of the aforesaid legal position, if the facts of the present
case are examined, it is gathered that when the increments were
given to the petitioner for the period from 1989 to 1994, the
petitioner was well aware that he is not entitled to this benefit. He
still continued to draw the said benefit without pointing it out to
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:6597
10 WP-3923-2018
the employer.
10. Further, the petitioner was punished for misconduct of
unauthorized absence. The State Government however, took a
lenient view and converted the punishment of dismissal from
service to one of stoppage of one increment. Thus, conferring
benefit of increment for the period from 1989 to 1994, for which
the petitioner was otherwise not entitled, will put a premium on the
misconduct conducted by the petitioner. Moreso, when the
petitioner was aware about the fact that he is not entitled to the
increment for the period he was not in service, in all fairness he
ought to have brought the same to the notice of the employer.
Therefore, in the facts and circumstances of the case, it cannot be
said that the petitioner is not responsible for over payment of
amount to him.
11. In the establishment of the State Government, there is no
practice of regular and periodic verification/examination of
fixation of salary of its employees. In almost all the cases of
excess payment, it is only when the employee retires and his
retrial dues are being settled, the mistake comes to the knowledge
of the employer. Needless to say, that excess amount paid to the
employee is paid out of the public exchequer. In other words, the
money forms part of the tax being paid by the common man.
Therefore, denial of recovery of excess amount by the
Government has to be made keeping in view the parameters laid
down by the Apex Court in the aforesaid case. The only ground on
which recovery of excess amount can be denied is the relative
hardship to be caused to the employee after retirement on account
of recovery."
11. In view of the aforesaid legal position, if the facts of the present
case are examined, it is gathered that when the increments were given to the
petitioner for the period from 2006 to 30.06.2016, the petitioner was well
aware that he is not entitled to this benefit. He still continued to draw the said
benefit without pointing it out to the employer.
12. Further, the petitioner was punished for misconduct of
unauthorized absence. The State Government imposed the punishment of
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:6597
11 WP-3923-2018
stoppage of one increment without cumulative effect. Thus, conferring
benefit of increment for the period from 2009 to 2010, for which the
petitioner was otherwise not entitled, will put a premium on the misconduct
conducted by the petitioner. Moreso, when the petitioner was aware about
the fact that he is not entitled to the increment for aforesaid period, in all
fairness he ought to have brought the same to the notice of the employer.
Therefore, in the facts and circumstances of the case, it cannot be said that
the petitioner is not responsible for over payment of amount to him.
13. Thus, in similar circumstances, this Court has held that not
allowing recovery of excess amount paid on account of non-implementation
of the punishment order would put a premium on the misconduct of the
employee. After referring to the Apex Court judgment in the case of Rafiq
Masih (supra), this Court has held that recovery of amount of excess payment
because of non-implementation of punishment order is permissible. Thus, in
view of the aforesaid, the action of the respondents in recovering the excess
amount paid on account of non-implementation of punishment order is
upheld.
14. So far as action of the respondents in recovering the amount
towards interest on the excess amount paid to the petitioner is concerned,
learned counsel for the petitioner is correct in submitting that since the
petitioner was not at fault, the amount towards interest cannot be recovered
from his retiral dues. In view of the aforesaid, the action of the respondents
in recovering the amount towards interest is also held to be unsustainable in
law.
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:6597
12 WP-3923-2018
15. In view of the discussion made above, this Court is of the
considered opinion that the respondents cannot be allowed to effect recovery
of excess amount from the petitioner's retiral dues on account of wrong
fixation of his salary except the recovery of amount as a result of non-
implementation of the punishment order. Accordingly, the impugned
recovery shown in PPO is set aside. The respondents are directed to re-
examine the matter and pass suitable order after revising the petitioner's
salary after giving effect to the punishment order and to recover the amount
only to that extent. The respondents shall not be entitled to recover any
amount towards interest on the excess amount paid to the petitioner.
16. After examining the matter, the respondents are directed to pay the
amount to the petitioner along with interest at the rate of 6% per annum.
17. Let the aforesaid exercise be completed within a period of 90 days
from the date of production of certified copy of this order.
18. With the aforesaid, this petition is disposed of.
(ANAND SINGH BAHRAWAT)
JUDGE
Monika
