Mahendra Kumar Vyas vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh

Court: Madhya Pradesh High Court
Decided on: 23-03-2026

<div> NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:7789 1 WP-21245-2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT INDORE BEFORE HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE JAI KUMAR PILLAI rd ON THE 23 OF MARCH, 2026 WRIT PETITION No. 21245 of 2025 MAHENDRA KUMAR VYAS Versus THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS Appearance: Shri Adarsh Kumar Namdeo - Advocate for the petitioner. Shri Ayushyaman Chodhary - Government Advocate for the respondents State. ORDER The petitioner has filed this present writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking the following reliefs :- "1. It is therefore, prayed that Hon’ble High Court may be pleased to issue appropriate writ, order or direction and the order of recovery dated 18/01/2019 may kindly be quashed in the interest of justice. 2. That, the respondent may kindly be directed to return the amount recovered from the petitioner with an interest of 12% per annum from the date of recovery. 3. That, the present writ petition may kindly be allowed with cost. 4. That, any other relief may kindly be granted which this Hon’ble Court may deemed fit." 2. The case of the petitioner is that impugned order Anenxure-P-1 dated 18.01.2019 has been passed by the respondents after his superannuation on 30.06.2016. Signature Not Verified Signed by: RASHMI PRASHANT Signing time: 23-03-2026 18:10:18 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:7789 2 WP-21245-2025 3. It is contended by the respondents that on wrong fixation of 7th Pay Scale extended to the petitioner the said impugned recovery has been initiated against the petitioner. It is clear that the said recovery pertains after his retirement. It is also contended in the impugned order that undertaking has been given by the petitioner on 13.10.2017 and referring to the said, the respondents have sought recovery in the matter. It is contended by the petitioner that the said omission on the part is not attributable on the part of the petitioner it is solely attributable on the part of the respondents. 4. 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 Education Planning, (2010) 14 SCC 323. 5. 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. 6. The Full Bench of this Court at Principal Seat, Jabalpur in identical matters has quashed such recovery orders by judgment dated 06.03.2024 Signature Not Verified Signed by: RASHMI PRASHANT Signing time: 23-03-2026 18:10:18 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:7789 3 WP-21245-2025 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. (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 aforesaid, answer of the full Bench the recovery on the basis of an undertaking/indemnity bond the recovery cannot be made on Signature Not Verified Signed by: RASHMI PRASHANT Signing time: 23-03-2026 18:10:18 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:7789 4 WP-21245-2025 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. 8. In view of the above, the impugned recovery order darted 18.01.2019 is hereby quashed. The amount, if any, recovered from the petitioner be refunded back to him. Let the same be done within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. The pay fixation of the petitioner is however maintained. However, it is made clear that the petitioner shall not be entitled for any interest on the said amount if recovered from the petitioner as the petitioner approached before this Court in the year 2026, whereas the recovery is of the year 2019. 9. With the aforesaid observation, this petition is allowed and disposed of, in above terms. Certified copy, as per rules. (JAI KUMAR PILLAI) JUDGE rashmi Signature Not Verified Signed by: RASHMI PRASHANT Signing time: 23-03-2026 18:10:18</div>