Rajesh Kumar Tripathi vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:25943
1 WP. No. 50065 of 2025
THE IN HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT GWALIOR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE ANAND SINGH BAHRAWAT
th
ON THE 25 OF AUGUST, 2026
WRIT PETITION No. 50065 of 2025
RAJESH KUMAR TRIPATHI
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Prashant Chauhan - Advocate for petitioner.
Shri Prabhat Pateriya – Government Advocate for respondent/State.
ORDER
Notices had been issued to respondents on 09.02.2026. Thereafter, again
on 29.06.2026, four weeks' time was granted to respondents to file reply as a
matter of last indulgence and it was also observed in the said order that if the
reply is not filed by the next date of hearing, the matter shall be decided on the
basis of the material available on record and benefit of doubt shall be extended in
favour of petitioner. Despite the aforesaid direction, till yet reply has not been
filed by respondents and petitioner has already stood retired on 31.08.2024.
1.1 Considering the above, present petition is being decided on the basis of
documents available on record.
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: PAWAN
DHARKAR
Signing time: 8/31/2026
7:11:31 PM

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:25943
2 WP. No. 50065 of 2025
2. This petition, under Article 226 of Constitution of India, has been filed
seeking the following relief (s):-
“7.1 That, the recovery of Rs. 78486.00/- from the retrial dues of the
petitioner may kindly quashed and respondents kindly directed to
refund the amount Rs. 78486.00/- which has been recovered from
the retiral dues of the petitioner, with the interest of 12% per annum.
7.2 That, other relief doing justice including cost be ordered.”
3. It is submitted by learned counsel for petitioner that initially petitioner was
appointed as Rural Agriculture Extension Officer in the year 1983. Petitioner
stood retired on 31.08.2024. At the time of retirement, service book was referred
to check whether increment of wages and pay fixation was done as per Rules or
not and as per the objection, petitioner was given benefit of wrong pay fixation
and on that basis, recovery of Rs.78,486/- has been ordered.
4. Learned counsel for petitioner submits that without giving any show-cause
notice or without affording an opportunity of hearing, without following the
principle of natural justice and on the basis of objections raised by respondents
impugned order of recovery Annexure P-1, calculating recovery to the tune of
Rs.78,486/- has been issued. Learned counsel for petitioner submits that
petitioner stood retired from the post of Agriculture Development Officer which
is a Class III post and recovery after retirement of employee is not permissible. It
is submitted that alleged excess amount has been paid on account of wrong
fixation of salary, however, petitioner is not responsible for wrong fixation. To
strengthen his submission, learned counsel for petitioner placed reliance on the
Full Bench decision 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 .
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: PAWAN
DHARKAR
Signing time: 8/31/2026
7:11:31 PM

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:25943
3 WP. No. 50065 of 2025
5. Per contra , learned counsel for the State opposed the prayer and submitted
that the excess amount was paid on account of erroneous fixation of salary and
therefore, the respondents are entitled to recover the amount paid in excess.
Therefore the principle laid down by Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of State of
Punjab Vs. Rafiq Masih (White Washer), (2015) 4 SCC 334 is not applicable
in case of petitioner.
6. Considered the submissions put forth by learned counsel for the parties and
perused the record.
7. The Full Bench of this Court in the case of Jagdish Prasad Dubey
(supra), 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.
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: PAWAN
DHARKAR
Signing time: 8/31/2026
7:11:31 PM

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:25943
4 WP. No. 50065 of 2025
(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
(supra) unless the undertaking is given voluntarily. "
8. The Apex Court has also dealt with the similar issue in the case of Rafiq
Masih (White Washer) (supra) , 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 ."
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: PAWAN
DHARKAR
Signing time: 8/31/2026
7:11:31 PM

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:25943
5 WP. No. 50065 of 2025
9. 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 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.”
10. 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
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: PAWAN
DHARKAR
Signing time: 8/31/2026
7:11:31 PM

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:25943
6 WP. No. 50065 of 2025
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.”
11. Since there is no reply filed by the State even after opportunity given on
the last date of listing as a matter of last indulgence and since it was also made
clear that if no reply is filed then the matter shall be decided on the basis of
material available on record, now, the benefit of doubt shall be extended in
favour of petitioner.
12. Petitioner stood retired on 31.08.2024. Recovery was initiated without
giving any show cause notice to him or an opportunity of being heard.
Furthermore, petitioner employee was a Class III employee (Agriculture
Development Officer), therefore, the petitioner would be entitled to the benefit of
the dictum of Hon. Apex Court in the case of Rafiq Masih (White Washer)
(supra) .
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: PAWAN
DHARKAR
Signing time: 8/31/2026
7:11:31 PM

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:25943
7 WP. No. 50065 of 2025
13. In view of the aforesaid legal position, the impugned recovery is not
permissible. Therefore, while setting aside the impugned recovery, the
respondents are directed to refund the amount of Rs.78,486/- to petitioner. The
respondents shall pay interest @ 6% per annum on Rs.78,486/-w.e.f. the date of
retirement till actual payment, failing which the respondents shall pay interest @
12% per annum from the date of entitlement till actual payment.
14. Let the said exercise, as directed above, be completed within a period of 90
days from the date of submission of certified copy of this order.
15. The petition is, accordingly, disposed of .
All interlocutory applications, if any, are also disposed of.
(Anand Singh Bahrawat)
Judge
pd
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: PAWAN
DHARKAR
Signing time: 8/31/2026
7:11:31 PM