[Cites 4, Cited by 0]
Madhya Pradesh High Court
Kumari Sharda Paul vs Public Health Department on 9 January, 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:742
1 WP-3346-2016
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT INDORE
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE JAI KUMAR PILLAI
ON THE 9 th OF JANUARY, 2026
WRIT PETITION No. 3346 of 2016
KUMARI SHARDA PAUL
Versus
PUBLIC HEALTH DEPARTMENT AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Rakesh Pal - Advocate for the petitioner.
Shri Pradyumna Kibe -GA for the respondent/State.
ORDER
The present petition has been filed by the petitioner challenging the
illegal recovery initiated against the petitioner to the tune of Rs.93,056/-.
The said recovery has been done 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.
2. Counsel for the petitioner submits that 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 Education Planning, (2010) 14 SCC 323.
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:742
2 WP-3346-2016
3. Counsel for the petitioner further 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.
4. The Full Bench of this Court at Principal Seat, Jabalpur in identical
matters has quashed such recovery orders by order 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 of the said order 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
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:742
3 WP-3346-2016
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."
5. In view of the above, in the light of the Full Bench decision in Jagdish
Prasad Dubey (supra), 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, the procedure for recovery prescribed under Rule 65 and 66 of Chapter
VIII of M.P. Civil Services Pension Rules, 1976 are not followed.
6. In view of the above, the impugned recovery order is hereby quashed.
The amount, if any, recovered from the petitioner be refunded to her 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.
7. The petition is accordingly allowed and disposed of.
(JAI KUMAR PILLAI)
JUDGE
hk/
