[Cites 3, Cited by 0]
Madhya Pradesh High Court
Satyabhama vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 19 January, 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:1587
1 WP-1400-2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT INDORE
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE JAI KUMAR PILLAI
ON THE 19th OF JANUARY, 2026
WRIT PETITION No. 1400 of 2026
SATYABHAMA
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Akash Sharma - Advocate for the petitioner [P-1].
Ms. Swati Ukhale - Govt. Advocate for the respondents/ State.
ORDER
Heard with the consent of both the parties.
2. The present writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of
India has been filed by the petitioners praying for the following reliefs :-
"That, the Hon'ble Court be pleased to allow the petition by quashing the impugned
order along with the Chart dated 26/07/2013 of recovery passed by the respondent
No. 3.
To quash the other consequential order of amended pay fixation if any which results
in to the passing of aforesaid impugned chart.
To issue an appropriate writ, direction or order, as this Hon'ble Court things fit and
proper seeing the facts and circumstances of the case.
Any other relief, which the Hon'ble Court deems fit in the facts and circumstances of
the case, be granted to the petitioner."
3. Counsel for the petitioner submits that in the instant petition,
petitioner is aggrieved by order dated 26.07.2013 whereby the petitioner has
been directed to deposit the amount of Rs.1,72,096/-. The said amount is the
principal amount of recovery. The petitioner has retired on 31.12.2008. The
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:1587
2 WP-1400-2026
pay-scale of the petitioner was revised and increased by amount of Rs.70/-.
Thereafter, the respondents have issued the impugned order directing the
petitioner to deposit the amount of Rs.1,72,096/- because of wrong pay
fixation done by the respondents. However they have directed to deposit
principal amount of Rs.1,72,096/-. Since his pension case was not being
finalized, under protest, the petitioner has deposited the said principal
amount. It is argued that the recovery of the said amount on account of
wrong pay fixation is contrary to the judgment passed by the Apex Court in
the case of State of Punjab V/s. Rafique Masih (White Washer) reported in
(2015) 4 SCC 334 and further submitted that 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.
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:1587
3 WP-1400-2026
(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."
4. Counsel for the State opposed the petition merely on the ground that
the recovery pertains to order dated 26.07.2013, however, does not dispute
that the issue involved in the present case is squarely covered by the said
judgment. It is not the case of the respondents that there was any
misrepresentation or fraud or cheating committed by the petitioner in
fixation of pay. Further there is no undertaking at the time of fixation of pay.
5. The objection of the State has been overruled by this Court since the
petitioner has explained the delay in filing the petition in para - 4 of the
petition. This Court is satisfied with the explanation and since the petitioner
has retired much prior to the judgment of the Full Bench at Principal Seat,
Jabalpur, therefore, he was not aware of the judgment. Since the benefit has
been extended to similarly situated persons, in the opinion of this Court, the
explanation tendered by the petitioner for the delay is justified.
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:1587
4 WP-1400-2026
6. In view of the above, the order dated 26.07.2013 passed by
respondent No.3 is hereby quashed. The amount, if any, recovered from the
petitioner be refunded to him. Let the same be done within a period of sixty
days from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order. The pay fixation
of the petitioner is, however, maintained.
7. With the aforesaid, present petition is allowed and disposed of.
(JAI KUMAR PILLAI)
JUDGE
sumathi
