Ravi Prakash Saxena vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh Thr.

Court: Madhya Pradesh High Court
Decided on: 07-04-2026

<div> NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:11377 1 WP-4175-2015 IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT GWALIOR BEFORE HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE ANAND SINGH BAHRAWAT th ON THE 7 OF APRIL, 2026 WRIT PETITION No. 4175 of 2015 RAVI PRAKASH SAXENA Versus THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH THR. AND OTHERS Appearance: Shri Dharmendra Singh Raghuwanshi - Advocate for the petitioner. Ms. Monika Mishra - Government Advocate for respondents/State. ORDER Present petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been filed seeking the following reliefs:- "(i) That, order dt. 09-2-15 (Annexure P/1) may kindly be quashed. (ii) That, the respondents may kindly be directed to release full pension, surrender leave, gratuity amount from the date of retirement with the interest of 18% P.A. thereon along with the arrears. (iii) That, the other relief doing justice including cost be awarded." 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that initially the petitioner was working as Under Secretary in the Board of Revenue, Gwalior Signature Not Verified Signed by: ABHISHEK CHATURVEDI Signing time: 4/10/2026 6:30:43 AM NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:11377 2 WP-4175-2015 till his retirement on 30.11.2014. Earlier the petitioner was found fit for promotion to the post of Under Secretary under the existing rules and, accordingly, he was promoted to the said post vide order dt. 03-09-2007 issued by the Board of Revenue w.e.f. 29-04-2004. A Writ Petition No.6149/2014 has been filed one Bhagwandas, challenging the promotion of petitioner made in the year 2007 and due to the pendency of the said writ petition, respondents have sanctioned 75% of pension (Rs.12,648/-) by the impugned order dated 09.02.2015 (Annexure P-1) on the ground that the pension case of the petitioner has not yet been finally decided and W.P. No.6149/2014 is pending before Gwalior Bench. Thereafter, after passing the interim order dated 08.07.2015 in the instant petition, the respondents have passed an order dated 08.12.2015, whereby while doing re-fixation, an amount of Rs.11,54,380/- was directed to be recoverable and consequently 90% of total gratuity amount of Rs.9,73,764/- to the tune of Rs.8,76,388/- was recovered and adjusted towards the recovery. It is further submitted that such recovery after retirement is impermissible in law as the petitioner has already retired on 30.11.2014. The encashment of leave to the tune of Rs.1,64,628/- though sanctioned, but adjusted towards the alleged excess payment and that has also been recovered from the petitioner with penal interest and Rs.3,97,615/- was recovered by order dated 22.12.2015 (Annexure P-6) and further submitted that the petitioner has not submitted any undertaking at the time of wrong pay fixation and only at the time of retirement, petitioner has submitted undertaking and after the retirement, recovery cannot be initiated against the petitioner. Signature Not Verified Signed by: ABHISHEK CHATURVEDI Signing time: 4/10/2026 6:30:43 AM NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:11377 3 WP-4175-2015 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that as per Rule 64 read with Rule 9(4), 9(6) of the Pension Rules, 1976, only when departmental enquiry or judicial proceedings are pending the provision of Section 64 can be invoked and the writ petition filed by a third party does not fall within the ambit of “judicial proceedings” as contemplated under the Rules. It is further submitted that the aforesaid W.P. No.6149/2014 has already been dismissed as rendered infructuous on 18.09.2025. 4. Per contra, learned counsel for the State supported the impugned order and opposed the prayer made by the petitioner. 5. The Full Bench of this Court in the case of State of Madhya Pradesh & others Vs. Jagdish Prasad Dubey reported in (2024) 2 M.P.L.J. 198 , has dealt with the similar issue and 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. Converselyan 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 Signature Not Verified Signed by: ABHISHEK CHATURVEDI Signing time: 4/10/2026 6:30:43 AM NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:11377 4 WP-4175-2015 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 (supra) unless the undertaking is given voluntarily." 6. The Apex Court has also dealt with the similar issue in the case o f State of Punjab Vs. Rafiq Masih (White Washer), (2015) 4 SCC 334 , wherein, the Apex Court held as under:- "18. 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 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." 7. The Supreme Court in the case of Jogeswar Sahoo and others Vs. District Judge, Cuttack and others reported in 2025 (3) M.P.L.J. (S.C.) 25 has held as under: “11. In the case at hand, the appellants were working on the post of Stenographers when the subject illegal payment was made to them. It is not reflected in the record that such payment was made to the appellants on account of any fraud or misrepresentation by them. It seems, when the financial benefit was extended to the appellants by the District Judge, Cuttack, the same was subsequently not approved by the High Court which resulted in the subsequent order of recovery. It is also not in dispute that the payment was made in the year 2017 whereas the recovery was directed in the year 2023. However, in the meanwhile, the appellants have retired in the year 2020. It is also an admitted Signature Not Verified Signed by: ABHISHEK CHATURVEDI Signing time: 4/10/2026 6:30:43 AM NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:11377 5 WP-4175-2015 position that the appellants were not afforded any opportunity of hearing before issuing the order of recovery. The appellants having superannuated on a ministerial post of Stenographer were admittedly not holding any gazetted post as such applying the principle enunciated by this Court in the above quoted judgment, the recovery is found unsustainable.” 8. The co-ordinate Bench of this Court has already decided the matter pertaining to the undertaking in the case of Ravindra Kumar Joshi Vs. The State of Madhya Pradesh and others [Writ Petition No.17831/2019 vide order dated 13.05.2024], relevant of which is reproduced below for ready reference and convenience: 8. …......It is brought on record by the respondents that at the time of extending benefit of time scale pay, petitioner has submitted an undertaking which is placed on record by the learned counsel for respondents/State and as per the undertaking, the petitioner had undertaken to repay the amount, if it was found that the same was extended to him erroneously. In the matter of High Court of Punjab and Haryana Vs. Jagdev Singh (supra), the Apex Court has held that if any undertaking is submitted at the time of grant of financial benefits on account of refixation of pay, the amount is refundable to the Government or the same is adjustable in future, and therefore, the action of the respondent/Department appears to be correct. Full Bench of this Court, in the matter of State of Madhya Pradesh and others Vs. Jadish Prasad Dubey and others (supra) has answered the question No.3 by holding that the undertaking given by the employee at the time of grant of financial benefits on account of refixation of pay is forced and the same is not forcible in the light of the Judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Central Inland Water Transport Corporation Ltd. and another Vs. Brojo Nath Ganguly and another (1986) 3 SCC 136, unless the undertaking is given voluntarily meaning thereby that if undertaking is given voluntarily, recovery is permissible and if undertaking is forced, then no recovery is permissible. 9. In the present matter, respondent/State has not established that petitioner had given undertaking voluntarily. Therefore, the undertaking shall be treated as obtained forcefully and therefore, there is no circumstance available in the case to consider the undertaking, which was not given voluntarily. On the strength of undertaking, recovery can not be affected.” 9. The petitioner, who retired on 30.11.2014 from the post of Under Secretary, had been duly promoted in the year 2007 under the applicable Signature Not Verified Signed by: ABHISHEK CHATURVEDI Signing time: 4/10/2026 6:30:43 AM NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:11377 6 WP-4175-2015 rules. The subsequent withholding of full pension and initiation of recovery proceedings were solely on account of the pendency of Writ Petition No. 6149/2014 filed by a third party challenging such promotion. The respondents sanctioned only 75% pension and later ordered recovery of alleged excess payment, including adjustment of gratuity and leave encashment, even after the petitioner’s retirement. According to the petitioner, such recovery is impermissible in law, particularly in the absence of any undertaking at the time of pay fixation. 10. The Court also notes the contention that under Rule 64 read with Rule 9(4) and 9(6) of the Pension Rules, 1976, withholding of pension is permissible only when departmental or judicial proceedings are pending. It is argued that a writ petition filed by a third party does not fall within the ambit of “judicial proceedings” as contemplated under the Rules. Additionally, it has been brought to the Court’s notice that the said writ petition has already been dismissed as infructuous on 18.09.2025. 11. Consequently, the impugned orders dated 09.02.2015 (Annexure P-1), 08.12.2015 (Annexure P-5) and 22.12.2015 (Annexure P-6) are hereby quashed. Respondents are directed to refund the recovered amount to the petitioner @ 6% per annum from the date of entitlement till actual payment and directed to release full pension and sanctioned leave gratuity amount to the petitioner. The respondents are directed to comply with the aforesaid directions within a period of three months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order. If the aforesaid directions are not complied with by the respondents within the stipulated period, then they are directed to pay Signature Not Verified Signed by: ABHISHEK CHATURVEDI Signing time: 4/10/2026 6:30:43 AM NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:11377 7 WP-4175-2015 the aforesaid amount with interest @ 12% per annum from the date of entitlement till actual payment. 12. With aforesaid directions and observations, this petition stands disposed of. (ANAND SINGH BAHRAWAT) JUDGE Abhi Signature Not Verified Signed by: ABHISHEK CHATURVEDI Signing time: 4/10/2026 6:30:43 AM</div>