Madhya Pradesh Power Transmission Co. Ltd. vs Kaptan Singh Pal

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:32471
1 WA-2261-2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT GWALIOR

BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE G. S. AHLUWALIA
&
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE PUSHPENDRA YADAV
rd
ON THE 23 OF OCTOBER, 2026
WRIT APPEAL No. 2261 of 2026
CNR No.: MPHC030172602026
MADHYA PRADESH POWER TRANSMISSION CO. LTD. AND
OTHERS
Versus
KAPTAN SINGH PAL
Appearance:
Shri Narottam Sharma - Advocate for the appellants.
Shri Alok Kumar Sharma - Advocate for the respondent.
ORDER
Per: Justice Pushpendra Yadav
By way of instant intra-Court appeal under Section 2(1) of the Madhya
Pradesh Uccha Nyayalaya (Khand Nyaypeeth Ko Appeal) Adhiniyam, 2005
the appellants are challenging the order dated 01.04.2026 passed in Writ
Petition No.5520/2017 whereby the writ petition filed by the respondent was
allowed by setting aside the order of recovery with direction to refund the
amount with 6% interest per annum.
2 . Brief facts necessary for disposal of the present appeal are that the
respondent was working as a Class IV employee. After completion of nine
years of qualifying service, he was granted the first higher pay scale on
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: MADHU
SOODAN PRASAD
Signing time: 27-Oct-26
10:27:15 AM

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:32471
2 WA-2261-2026
22/06/1993 in the pay scale of Rs. 1040–1710. Upon completion of 18 years

of qualifying service, he was granted the second Kramonnati in the pay scale
of Rs. 2490–2570 on 25/06/2003. Thereafter, on completion of 30 years of
qualifying service, the respondent was granted the benefit of third time-
bound higher pay scale in the pay scale of Rs. 5200–20200 with Grade Pay
of Rs. 2,500 on 01/09/2015. Subsequently, by the impugned order dated
17/08/2017, recovery of Rs. 3,97,114/- in 35 instalments was ordered on the
ground that on account of fixation in the higher pay scale, some excess
amount has been paid. The respondent challenged the said order of recovery
mainly on the ground that the same was issued without affording any
opportunity of hearing and in violation of the principles of natural justice.
The learned Single Judge relying upon the law laid down by the Hon’ble
Supreme Court in the case of State of Punjab v. Rafiq Masih (White
Washer), (2015) 4 SCC 334, set aside the order of recovery and directed to
refund the same with interest at the rate of 6%, failing which it will carry
interest at the rate of 12% per annum. Hence, the present appeal.
3. The learned counsel for the appellants submits that the pay fixation was
done erroneously and on account of the same, excess amount was paid. The
learned counsel for the appellants further submits that the pay scale for
which the respondent was not entitled was extended to him, therefore, the
respondent is liable to refund the said excess amount. It is also submitted that
at the time of pay fixation an undertaking was given and on account of the
said undertaking, the respondent is liable to refund the excess amount in the
light of the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of High Court
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: MADHU
SOODAN PRASAD
Signing time: 27-Oct-26
10:27:15 AM

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:32471
3 WA-2261-2026
of Punjab and Haryana Vs. Jagdev Singh, (2016) 14 SCC 265.

4 . Per contra, the learned counsel for the respondent supported the
impugned order and prayed for dismissal of the writ appeal.
5. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
6 . The appellants have raised a specific ground that at the time of pay
fixation, the respondent had given an undertaking and on account of the said
undertaking, he is liable to refund the excess amount. The appellants referred
to Annexure R-4 as the undertaking given by the respondent.
7 . From a perusal of Annexure R-4, it is clearly revealed that no such
undertaking was given by the respondent that if any excess amount is paid on
account of erroneous pay fixation, he would refund the same, whereas, as per
the undertaking referred to by the appellants, the respondent undertook that
on absorption against a regular post, he shall join the post at the place of
posting and, on refusal to do so, the benefit under the order shall be forfeited
and he shall be reverted to his original lower grade and shall draw the pay,
which he would have drawn had he not been given the benefit of this order.
By no stretch of imagination, the said undertaking given by the respondent
can be said to have been given at the time of pay fixation.
8. The appellants have completely failed to produce the undertaking which
was given by the respondent at the time of the first, second and third up-
gradations. In absence of undertaking, the action of the appellants in
recovering the amount is bad in law. There was no misrepresentation on the
part of the respondent in receiving the benefit of higher pay scale. The
present case is squarely covered by the Full Bench decision of this Court in
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: MADHU
SOODAN PRASAD
Signing time: 27-Oct-26
10:27:15 AM

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:32471
4 WA-2261-2026
the case of State of Madhya Pradesh & others Vs. Jagdish Prasad

Dubey, (2024) 2 M.P.L.J.198.
9. In view of the aforesaid, learned Single Judge has rightly appreciated the
facts and law. No ground is made out warranting interference in the
impugned order. Consequently, this appeal is hereby dismissed.
(G. S. AHLUWALIA)
(PUSHPENDRA YADAV)
JUDGE
JUDGE
ms/-

Signature Not Verified
Signed by: MADHU
SOODAN PRASAD
Signing time: 27-Oct-26
10:27:15 AM