[Cites 4, Cited by 0]
Madhya Pradesh High Court
Ramprasad Chhaparwal vs State Of Madhya Pradesh Through ... on 8 January, 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:513
1 WP-49972-2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT INDORE
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE JAI KUMAR PILLAI
ON THE 8 th OF JANUARY, 2026
WRIT PETITION No. 49972 of 2025
RAMPRASAD CHHAPARWAL
Versus
STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH THROUGH PRINCIPAL SECRETARY
HOME DEPARTMENT POLICE AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Aakash Balodiya - Advocate for the petitioner.
Shri Sudeep Bhargav - Deputy Advocate General for the respondents /
State.
ORDER
The petitioner is challenging the impugned orders of recovery dated
08.08.2018, whereby the respondents recovered the excess payment made to the
petitioner.
2. The said recovery is being sought on account of the excess payment
made to the petitioner in the basic salary at the time of pay fixation of the
petitioner and before his retirement.
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:513
2 WP-49972-2025
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 the 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, wherein 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.
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:513
3 WP-49972-2025
(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."
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 along with
interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of recovery till date of payment.
Let the same be done within a period of 3 months from the date of receipt of a
certified copy of this order. The pay fixation of the petitioner is however
maintained.
8. The petition is accordingly allowed and disposed of.
(JAI KUMAR PILLAI)
JUDGE
Tej
