[Cites 4, Cited by 0]
Madhya Pradesh High Court
Mayaram vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 16 January, 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:1412
1 WP-49304-2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT INDORE
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE JAI KUMAR PILLAI
ON THE 16th OF JANUARY, 2026
WRIT PETITION No. 49304 of 2025
MAYARAM
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Pravar Barche - Advocate for the petitioner.
Shri Kratik Mandloi _PL for the respondents/State.
Shri M.S.Dwivedi- Advocate for the respondents No.2 & 3.
ORDER
Heard with the consent of parties finally.
2. The short question involved in the present petition is that the
petitioner is aggrieved by the illegal recovery done against the petitioner
vide order dated 03.01.2023, 14.02.2023 & 27.03.2023 (Annexure P/2, P/3
& P/4) issued by respondents No.2 & 3, whereby an amount of Rs.2,82,588/-
and Rs.28,140/- has been recovered from the petitioner after his retirement.
3. It is the case of the petitioner that he has been superannuated on
31.12.2022 from the post of Senior Line Assistant and the impugned
recovery as alleged by the petitioner is in respect to wrong fixation of pay
which is solely attributable on the part of the respondents and not on the
petitioner.
4. Counsel for the petitioner submits that the recovery from the
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:1412
2 WP-49304-2025
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.
5. 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.
6. 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)
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:1412
3 WP-49304-2025
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."
7. 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.
8. In view of the above, the impugned recovery orders are 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
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:1412
4 WP-49304-2025
fixation of the petitioner is, however, maintained.
9. The petition is accordingly allowed and disposed of.
(JAI KUMAR PILLAI)
JUDGE
hk/
