Dr. Ramveer Singhraghuwanshi vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh

1 WP. No. 12164 of 2020
THE IN HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT GWALIOR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE ANAND SINGH BAHRAWAT
th
ON THE 20 OF APRIL, 2026
WRIT PETITION No. 12164 of 2020
DR. RAMVEER SINGHRAGHUWANSHI
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Dharmendra Singh Raghuwanshi - Advocate for the petitioner.
Shri Rajendra Jain – Government Advocate for respondents/State.
ORDER
This petition, under Article 226 of Constitution of India, has been filed
seeking the following relief (s):-
“(i) That, the impugned order dated 27.04.2019 (Annexure
P/1) be quashed and set aside.
(ii) That, the impugned order dated 20.11.2018 (Annexure
P/2) be quashed and set aside.
(iii) It may be held that no recovery of Rs. 15,22,740/- as
indicated in the order annexure P/1 issued by the District pension
officer can be effected after the retirement of the petitioner and
accordingly if any recovery made during the pendency of this
petition, may kindly be directed to be refunded to the petitioner
with the interest of @18% per annum.
(iv) That, the respondents may. kindly be directed to release
all the retiral dues and the gratuity to the tune of Rs. 20,00,000/-
(Twenty lakhs rupees only) with the interest of @18% per annum.
The respondents accordingly are directed to re-fixaton of dues
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: ABHISHEK
CHATURVEDI
Signing time: 4/25/2026
2:58:57 PM

2 WP. No. 12164 of 2020
and pension of the petitioner and to refund the due amount to the
petitioner in the interest of justice.
(v) That, other relief which is just and proper in the facts and
circumstances of the case may also be granted.”
2. It is submitted by learned counsel for petitioner that at the time of
retirement, he was working as Incharge Chief Medical and Health Officer at
Guna. Petitioner stood retired on 30.06.2018. It is submitted that after completion
of 20 years of service, respondents have passed an order dated 26.08.2008 by
granting benefit of senior grade pay scale to the petitioner. The State Government
passed an order on 17.04.2009, by which the petitioner was promoted from the
post of Medical Officer to the post of District Leprosy Officer in the pay scale of
Rs. 10,000-325-15,200/-. Thereafter, pay fixation was made by Joint Director,
Health Services. It is submitted that Chief Medical and Health Officer, who is the
subordinate authority of the Joint Director has no power to say that the pay
fixation was wrongly made in favour of the petitioner because at that time, the
petitioner was working as Class-I Officer. Now after 10 years, respondent No. 2
passed an order dated 20.11.2018 (Annexure P/2), by which amendment has been
made in the order dated 26.08.2008 regarding senior grade pay scale and
direction has been issued to made the recovery of the excess payment from the
leave encashment and the gratuity of the petitioner.
3. Learned counsel for petitioner submitted that without giving any show-
cause notice or without affording an opportunity of hearing, without following
the principle of natural justice, impugned order of recovery Annexure P-1
calculating recovery to the tune of Rs.15,22,740/- has been issued. Petitioner
stood retired from the post of Incharge Chief Medical and Health Officer at Guna
which is a Class-I post and recovery after retirement of employee is not
permissible. It is further submitted that the impugned action of the respondents
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: ABHISHEK
CHATURVEDI
Signing time: 4/25/2026
2:58:57 PM

3 WP. No. 12164 of 2020
regarding making the recovery is bad in law because neither any fraud nor any
misrepresentation was committed by the petitioner. Even no undertaking in this
regard has been either asked for or furnished by the petitioner and thereto making
the recovery after 10 years from the date of order is itself contrary to law laid
down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of State of Punjab Vs. Rafiq
Masih (White Washer) reported in (2015) 4 SCC 334.
4. 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. It is
further submitted by him that at the time of preparation of pension papers, he had
given consent for recovery in case of excess payment (Annexure R-1). It is
further submitted that the said undertaking had been given by petitioner
voluntarily therefore the principle laid down by Hon'ble Apex Court in the case
of Rafiq Masih (Supra) is not applicable in case of petitioner.
5. Considered the submissions put forth by learned counsel for the parties and
perused the record.
6. Hon'ble Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No.5527 of 2022 [M.P. Medical
Officers Association Vs. The State of Madhya Pradesh and Ors.] has dealt
with the controversy involved in the present petition. Relevant part of the
judgment reads as under:-
“1. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned
judgment and order passed by the High Court of Madhya Pradesh,
Jabalpur in Writ Appeal No. 1073 of 2018 by which the High
Court has allowed the said writ appeal preferred by the State of
Madhya Pradesh and others and has quashed and set aside the
judgment and order passed by the learned Single Judge passed in
Writ Petition No. 6236 pf 2014, the original writ petitioners – M.P.
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: ABHISHEK
CHATURVEDI
Signing time: 4/25/2026
2:58:57 PM

4 WP. No. 12164 of 2020
Medical Officers Association and other individual members of the
Association have filed the present appeals.
2. The members of the appellant Association and other
appellants were working as Specialists and Dental Specialists
respectively under the M.P. Public Health and Family Welfare
(Gazetted) Service Recruitment Rules, 1988. The said Rules were
repealed by the M.P. Public Health and Family Welfare (Gazetted)
Service Recruitment Rules, 2007 published in the Gazette on
27.03.2008. The State issued an order on 26.08.2008 to grant
higher pay-scale on completion of six years to the Medical
Officers, Dental Surgeons and officers working in the Specialist
cadre in a four tier pay-scales. Later, the circular dated 23.05.2009
was issued to the effect that the period from the date of 2
appointment shall be counted as notional appointment though the
benefit of the scheme shall be granted from the date of issuance of
the order of the State Government dated 26.08.2008. In the
circular dated 23.05.2009, it was also provided that the fourth tier
pay-scale will be payable on completion of the prescribed service
period, but the financial benefits shall be extended w.e.f.
26.8.2008. The period between the date of completion of the
prescribed period and 26.08.2008 shall be eligible for notional pay
fixation. Having found that the circular dated 23.05.2009 was
wrongly issued and was issued without approval of the Finance
Department and as the benefits flowing from the circular dated
23.05.2009 were having financial implications/burden and it was
found that the said circular was issued by the authority, who had
no competence and therefore vide communication dated
30.05.2012, the circular dated 23.05.2009 came to be withdrawn.
However, the respective Medical Officers working as Specialists,
Dental Specialists and the officers working in the specialist’s cadre
– members of the appellant association were granted the actual
benefit flowing from the circular dated 23.05.2009 till 30.05.2012,
i.e., till the circular dated 23.05.2009 was withdrawn. As the
benefits were wrongly paid under the circular dated 23.05.2009,
which was subsequently withdrawn on 30.05.2012, the State
Government ordered recovery of the excess amount paid
alongwith the interest.
2.1 The communication dated 30.05.2012 withdrawing
the circular dated 23.05.2009 and the recovery of the
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: ABHISHEK
CHATURVEDI
Signing time: 4/25/2026
2:58:57 PM

5 WP. No. 12164 of 2020
excess amount paid alongwith the interest were the subject
matter of Writ Petition No. 6236 of 2014 preferred by the
M.P. Medical Officers Association. Individual writ
petitioners also filed their separate writ petitions, however,
the Writ Petition No.6236 of 2014 preferred by the
Association was treated as the lead matter. By common
judgment and order, the learned Single Judge allowed all
the writ petitions and quashed the communication dated
30.05.2012 withdrawing the circular dated 23.05.2009.
The learned Single Judge also quashed the orders of
recovery of the excess amount paid alongwith the interest.
2.2 Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the judgment
and order passed by the learned Single Judge dated
20.12.2017 passed in Writ Petition No. 6236 of 2014, the
State preferred Writ Appeal No. 1073 of 2018 before the
Division Bench of the High Court. By the impugned
judgment and order, the Division Bench of the High Court
has allowed the aforesaid writ appeal and has quashed and
set aside the judgment and order passed by the learned
Single Judge quashing and setting aside the
communication dated 30.05.2012 withdrawing the circular
dated 23.05.2009 and also quashing the recovery of the
excess amount paid alongwith the interest. The impugned
judgment and order passed 4 by the Division Bench of the
High Court passed in Writ Appeal No. 1073 of 2018 is the
subject matter of the present appeals.
3. We have heard Shri P.S. Patwalia, learned Senior Advocate
appearing on behalf of the appellant and Shri Saurabh Mishra,
learned Additional Advocate General appearing on behalf of the
respondent State.
4. Having heard the learned counsel for the respective part is
and having gone through the impugned judgment and order passed
by the Division Bench of the High Court and the ground on which
the circular dated 23.05.2009 was withdrawn namely, the same
was issued without authority and/or competence and was issued
without any approval and/or concurrence of the Finance
Department as the benefits flowing from the circular dated
23.05.2009 were having financial implications/burden, we see no
reason to interfere with the impugned judgment and order passed
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: ABHISHEK
CHATURVEDI
Signing time: 4/25/2026
2:58:57 PM

6 WP. No. 12164 of 2020
by the Division Bench of the High Court upholding the
communication dated 30.05.2012 withdrawing the circular dated
23.05.2009. The Division Bench of the High Court is absolutely
justified in quashing and setting aside the judgment and order
passed by the learned Single Judge of the High Court quashing the
communication dated 30.05.2012 withdrawing the circular dated
23.05.2009.
4.1 However, at the same time, the Division Bench of the
High Court has erred in quashing and setting aside the
judgment and order passed by the learned Single Judge
allowing the writ petitions and setting aside the recovery
of excess amount paid for the period between 2009 to
2012, which was sought to be recovered with interest.
5. It is not in dispute that the members of the appellant
association, who were serving as Specialists, Dental Specialists
and officers in the specialist’s cadre got the benefits under the
circular dated 23.05.2009. It was the Department/State, who
issued the circular dated 23.05.2009 and paid the benefits under
the circular dated 23.05.2009 to the members of the appellant
association, which subsequently came to be withdrawn by the
State in the year 2012. Therefore, as such, there was neither any
misrepresentation on the part of the concerned employees –
members of the appellant association nor can the mistake be
attributed to them. The mistake, if any, can be said to be that of the
Department/State, who issued the circular dated 23.05.2009 under
which the members of the association were given certain benefits
till the same was withdrawn in the year 2012. Therefore, in the
peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, the State was not
justified in ordering recovery of the excess amount paid along
with the interest. It is true that stricto sensu, the decision of this
Court in the case of State of Punjab and others Vs. Rafiq Masih,
(2015) 4 SCC 334 may not be applicable. However, at the same
time, as observed hereinabove, and in the facts and circumstances
of the case, the State was not justified in ordering recovery of the
excess amount paid with interest, more particularly, when it is
reported that some of the doctors/dentists – members of the
association have retired on attaining the age of superannuation and
the recovery shall be from their pension/pensionary benefits.
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: ABHISHEK
CHATURVEDI
Signing time: 4/25/2026
2:58:57 PM

7 WP. No. 12164 of 2020
However, at the same time, their pay fixation and the pension shall
have to be as per the order dated 26.08.2008.
6. In view of the above and for the reasons stated above, all
these Appeals Succeed in part. The impugned judgment and order
passed by the Division Bench of the High Court upholding the
recovery of the excess amount paid alongwith interest is hereby
quashed and set aside. In result, there shall not be any recovery of
the excess amount paid pursuant to the circular dated 23.05.2009
till the same was withdrawn on 30.05.2012. However, for all other
purposes including the pay fixation and pension etc., the same
shall be now worked out as per the order dated 26.08.2008, as if,
the circular dated 23.05.2009 was never issued.
7. Present appeals are accordingly partly allowed to the
aforesaid extent. However, in the facts and circumstances of the
case, there shall be no order as to costs.”
7. 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 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
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: ABHISHEK
CHATURVEDI
Signing time: 4/25/2026
2:58:57 PM

8 WP. No. 12164 of 2020
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
(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: ABHISHEK
CHATURVEDI
Signing time: 4/25/2026
2:58:57 PM

9 WP. No. 12164 of 2020
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
benefits on account of refixation of pay, the amount is refundable to
the Government or the same is adjustable in future, and therefore, the
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: ABHISHEK
CHATURVEDI
Signing time: 4/25/2026
2:58:57 PM

10 WP. No. 12164 of 2020
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. Wrong pay fixation was carried out from 01.07.2008 and petitioner had not
furnished undertaking while fixation on 01.07.2008 (as there is no such
undertaking appended in the record). In absence of any specific undertaking at
the time of making payment of such amount, i.e., 01.07.2008, the petitioner
would be entitled to the benefit of the dictum of Apex Court in the case of Rafiq
Masih (White Washer) (supra) . Undertaking (Annexure R-1) was furnished by
petitioner after his retirement and he did not furnish any undertaking at the time
of extending the benefits of pay to him, i.e., 01.07.2008. Thus, it is clear that
undertaking was furnished by petitioner at the time of retirement and he did not
furnish any undertaking at the time of extending the benefit of pay to him. The
undertaking furnished by petitioner at the time of his retirement cannot be said to
be an undertaking for which recovery of excess payment which has been made
long back would become effective. The said undertaking would not benefit the
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: ABHISHEK
CHATURVEDI
Signing time: 4/25/2026
2:58:57 PM

11 WP. No. 12164 of 2020
respondents and the recovery being made from the petitioner is consequently
illegal.
12. Petitioner stood retired on 30.06.2018. Recovery pertains to the period
from 01.07.2008 to 01.07.2017 and it was initiated without giving any show-
cause notice to him or an opportunity of being heard. Furthermore, petitioner-
employee was a Class-I employee. 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.15,22,740/- to petitioner. The respondents shall pay interest @ 6% per annum
on Rs.15,22,740/- w.e.f. the date of retirement till actual payment. It is made
clear that in case no recovery is made from the retiral dues, petitioner is not
entitled to the aforesaid relief.
13. So far as with regard to the relief No. 4, i.e., retiral benefits and gratuity is
concerned, respondents are directed to settle all the retiral dues including gratuity
within a period of three months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this
order and if the same is not done within the stipulated period, then the
respondents are directed to pay the aforesaid amount @12% per annum from the
date of entitlement till actual payment to the petitioner.
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 .

Signature Not Verified
Signed by: ABHISHEK
CHATURVEDI
Signing time: 4/25/2026
2:58:57 PM