Ram Prakash Yadav vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:67063
1 WP-9568-2016
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR

BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE DEEPAK KHOT
st
ON THE 1 OF SEPTEMBER, 2026
WRIT PETITION No. 9568 of 2016
RAM PRAKASH YADAV
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Ajeet Kumar Singh - Advocate for the petitioner.
Shri Suyash Thakur G.A. for the respondent/State.
ORDER
The petitioner has filed the present petition under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India seeking following relief:
(i) It is, therefore, prayed that this Hon'ble Court may kindly be
pleased to quash the impugned order dated 18.01.2016 contained
in Annexure P/5
(ii) It is, therefore, prayed that this Hon’ble Court may kindly be
pleased to direct the respondents to refund the amount to
the petitioner within 3 months with an interest @ of 6% per
annum, till date of realization..
(iii) Any other relief as deemed fit and proper in the circumstances
of this case, along with the cost of this writ petition be
also awarded.
2. It is the case of the petitioner that the petitioner was initially
appointed on the post of Radiographer, which is class-III post on 02.03.1982,
he continued on the said post and superannuated on 31.10.2016. Vide
impugned order dated 18.1.2016 (annexure P/5), recovery of Rs.33,040/- for
the period commencing from 01.07.2006 to 01.07.2015 as excess payment is
directed to be made from the petitioner on account of erroneous fixation of
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: HEMANT SARAF
Signing time: 9/2/2026
1:40:52 PM

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:67063
2 WP-9568-2016
pay of VI Pay Commission.

3. It is contended by the counsel for the petitioner that the impugned
order dated 18.01.2016, whereby the petitioner’s pay has been
retrospectively reduced with effect from 01.07.2006 and his last pay has
been re-fixed at Rs.16,220/-, is wholly arbitrary and unsustainable in law.
The reduction of pay was effected at the time of superannuation of the
petitioner without issuing any show-cause notice or affording any
opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. Consequently, the recovery of the
alleged excess payment and the consequential reduction in his retiral dues are
also illegal.
4. It is further submitted that the impugned action has been taken in
gross violation of the principles of natural justice. No such order could have
been passed by the respondents without following the procedure prescribed
under the relevant service rules and without giving the petitioner an
opportunity to explain his case. Since the impugned order has been passed
unilaterally, retrospectively and in violation of the principles of natural
justice, the same deserves to be quashed. To bolster his submission, counsel
for the petitioner has relied upon a judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court passed
in the case of State of Punjab and others Vs. Rafiq Masih (White Washer) :
(2015) 4 SCC 334.
5. Per contra, on the basis of reply, it is submitted by the counsel for
the respondents that as on 01.07.2006,the petitioner was paid salary in the
basic pay of Rs.14620 + 2800 GP total salary which was paid to him was
sum of Rs.17,420/-. But the petitioner was entitled to get basic pay of
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: HEMANT SARAF
Signing time: 9/2/2026
1:40:52 PM

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:67063
3 WP-9568-2016
Rs.11740/- only. Therefore, an excess amount of Rs.2880/- was paid to the

petitioner, and the said excess amount is sought to be recovered vide
impugned order dated 18.1.2016. It is submitted that prior to his retirement
the petitioner submitted his pension form along with an indemnity bond,
annexure R/2 to respondent No.4. Thereafter, his pension case was
forwarded to the District Pension Officer, Betul, along with the pension
calculation sheet and other requisite documents. It is submitted that the
District Pension Officer, Betul, has raised an objection with regard to
erroneous fixation of pay while 6th pay commission fixation. It is submitted
that in view of the aforesaid objection, respondent No.4 recalculated the pay
of the petitioner and forwarded the revised pay fixation case to the District
Pension Officer, Betul, along with the revised pension calculation sheet and
other requisite documents. The respondents have relied upon the judgment
of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in High Court of Punjab & Haryana and
Others v. Jagdev Singh, reported in (2016) 14 SCC 267. It is further
submitted that Rule 65 of the M.P. Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1976
permits recovery and adjustment of ascertainable Government dues from the
gratuity payable to a retiring Government servant.
6. Heard learned Counsel for the parties and perused the record.
7. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Rafiq Masih (Supra)
has carved out exception in regard to recovery of excess payment to the
employees which is reproduced hereinunder:-
"It is not possible to postulate all situations of hardship, which
would govern employees on the issue of recovery, where
payments have mistakenly been made by the employer, in excess
of their entitlement. Be that as it may, based on the decisions
referred to herein above, we may, as a ready reference, summarise
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: HEMANT SARAF
Signing time: 9/2/2026
1:40:52 PM

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:67063
4 WP-9568-2016
the following few situations, wherein recoveries by the employers,
would be impermissible in law:

"(i) Recovery from employees belonging to Class-III
and Class-IV service (or Group ‘C’ and Group ‘D’
service).
(ii) Recovery from retired employees, or employees
who are due to retire within one year, of the order of
recovery.
(iii) Recovery from employees, when the excess
payment has been made for a period in excess of five
years, before the order of recovery is issued.
(iv) Recovery in cases where an employee has
wrongfully been required to discharge duties of a higher
post, and has been paid accordingly, even though he
should have rightfully been required to work against an
inferior post.
(v) In any other case, where the Court arrives at the
conclusion, that recovery if made from the employee,
would be iniquitous or harsh or arbitrary to such an
extent, as would far outweigh the equitable balance of
the employer’s right to recover."
8. From perusal of record, it is evident that the petitioner stood retired
from service on 30.10.2016, however, vide the impugned order dated
18.01.2016 (Annexure P-5), the pay of the petitioner was retrospectively
reduced with effect from 01.07.2006 and his last pay was re-fixed at
Rs.16,220/- resulting in recovery of Rs.33,040/- from his retiral dues.
Admittedly, before passing the said order, no notice or opportunity of
hearing was afforded to the petitioner. The respondents have tried hard to
justify the action on the ground that the petitioner had been granted an
erroneous pay fixation and had furnished an undertaking for recovery of any
excess payment. However, the said undertaking cannot take away the
requirement of following the principles of natural justice before taking an
adverse decision affecting the petitioner’s pay and retiral benefits. There is
nothing on record to indicate that the petitioner had obtained the said benefit
by practising fraud, misrepresentation or suppression of any material fact.
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: HEMANT SARAF
Signing time: 9/2/2026
1:40:52 PM

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:67063
5 WP-9568-2016
The respondents, after having extended the benefit, withdrew the same and

ordered recovery of the alleged excess amount without affording any
opportunity of hearing to the petitioner.
9. It is also not in dispute that the petitioner is a Class-III employee.
The respondents have failed to demonstrate that the excess payment, if any,
was attributable to any fault on the part of the petitioner. The impugned
recovery has been sought at the verge of retirement for the amount which has
been paid years ago. Thus, case of the petitioner falls in category (i), (ii) and
(iii) of the judgment.
10. The counsel for the respondents had tried to distinguish the case on
the basis of the Judgement of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of High Court
of Punjab and Haryana & Others Vs. Jagdev Singh (2016) 14 SCC 267
by submitting that at the relevant point of time the petitioner has submitted
indemnity bond/undertaking that in case the petitioner is paid in excess to the
entitlement, then it shall be refunded back. However, Full Bench of this
Court in the case of The State of M.P. & Others Vs. Jagdish Prasad Dubey
vide Order dated 6.3.2024 passed in WA No.815/2017 has held as under:-
"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
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: HEMANT SARAF
Signing time: 9/2/2026
1:40:52 PM

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:67063
6 WP-9568-2016
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 given voluntarily."

11. When the facts of the present case have been tested on the anvil of
the Principle laid by this Court in the case of Jagdish Prasad Dubey (Supra),
it is found that the undertaking/indemnity bond cannot be used against the
petitioner for recovery of the amount, which has been paid years before. It is
also held that any undertaking given by the employee at the time of
pay fixation on account of re-fixation of pay is a forced undertaking, and
therefore, is not enforceable in the light of Judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme
Court in the case of Central Inland Water Transport Co. Ltd. & Another Vs.
Brojo Nath Ganguly and Another reported in (1986) 3 SCC 156, unless the
undertaking is given voluntarily. The respondent/State has not substantiated
that the undertaking has been given voluntarily.
12. Thus, on the basis of above enunciation of law and considering the
factual matrix of the case, this Court is of the opinion that the impugned
recovery dated 18.01.2016 (Annexure-P/5) directed against the petitioner
could not pass judicial scrutiny of this Court and is hereby quashed.
13. The respondents are directed to make the entire payment of the
amount sought to be recovered/ or already recovered through the order
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: HEMANT SARAF
Signing time: 9/2/2026
1:40:52 PM

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:67063
7 WP-9568-2016
(Annexure-P/1) within a period of three months from the date of production

of certified copy of the order.
14. The petition stands disposed of accordingly.
(DEEPAK KHOT)
JUDGE
HS

Signature Not Verified
Signed by: HEMANT SARAF
Signing time: 9/2/2026
1:40:52 PM