Munni Lal Sharma vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh

1 WP. No. 6454 of 2017

IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT GWALIOR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE ANAND SINGH BAHRAWAT
th
ON THE 8 OF APRIL, 2026
WRIT PETITION No. 6454 of 2017
MUNNI LAL SHARMA
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
Appearance:
None for the petitioner.
Shri G.K. Agarwal – 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 present petition filed by the petitioner may
kindly be allowed;
(ii) That, the order dated 21.7.2017 Annexure P/1 and
the order Annexure P/2 may kindly be directed to be
set aside.
(iii) That, the respondents may kindly be directed to pay
the amount of recovery Rs.3,73,306/- along with
interest at the rate of 10% per annum.
(iv) That any other just, suitable and proper relief, which
this Hon’ble Court deems fit, may also kindly be
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: ABHISHEK
CHATURVEDI
Signing time: 4/21/2026
6:15:35 PM

2 WP. No. 6454 of 2017

granted to the petitioner. Costs be also awarded in
favour of the petitioner.”
2. As per the averments made in the petition, initially petitioner was
appointed as Surveyor/Bhumapak on 31.12.1987. Petitioner stood retired on
30.09.2016. At the time of retirement, service book was referred to the Joint
Director, Treasury, Accounts and Pension Department to check whether
increment of wages and pay fixation was done as per Rules or not and as per
their objection, petitioner was given excess payment for which he was not
entitled to. On that basis, recovery of Rs.3,73,306/- has been ordered.
3. It is further averred 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 Treasury Officer, order of
recovery to the tune of Rs.3,73,306/- has been issued. Petitioner stood retired
from the post of Krishi Vikas Adhikari and recovery after retirement of employee
is not permissible. The alleged excess amount has been paid on account of wrong
fixation of salary of petitioner carried out from 01.01.2006 till 01.07.2016,
however, petitioner is not responsible for wrong fixation. 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 applicable in case of petitioner.
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-3). It is
further submitted that the said undertaking had been given by petitioner
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: ABHISHEK
CHATURVEDI
Signing time: 4/21/2026
6:15:35 PM

3 WP. No. 6454 of 2017

voluntarily, therefore, principle of law laid down in the matter of State of
Madhya Pradesh & others Vs. Jagdish Prasad Dubey reported in (2024) 2
M.P.L.J.198 is applicable and principle of law laid down in the matter of Rafiq
Masih (supra) is not applicable in case of the petitioner.
5. Considered the submissions put forth by learned counsel for the
respondents and perused the record.
6. 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.
(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
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: ABHISHEK
CHATURVEDI
Signing time: 4/21/2026
6:15:35 PM

4 WP. No. 6454 of 2017

in the case of Central Inland Water Transport Corporation Limited
(supra) unless the undertaking is given voluntarily."
7. 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."
8. 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
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: ABHISHEK
CHATURVEDI
Signing time: 4/21/2026
6:15:35 PM

5 WP. No. 6454 of 2017

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.”
9. 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
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: ABHISHEK
CHATURVEDI
Signing time: 4/21/2026
6:15:35 PM

6 WP. No. 6454 of 2017

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.”
10. Wrong pay fixation was carried out from 01.01.2006 and petitioner had not
furnished undertaking while fixation (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, 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-3) was furnished by the petitioner after his retirement
and he did not furnish any undertaking at the time of extending the benefits of
pay to him, i.e., 01.01.2006. 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 respondents and
the recovery being made from the petitioner is consequently illegal.
11. Petitioner stood retired on 30.09.2016. Recovery pertains to the period
from 01.01.2006 to 01.07.2016 and it was initiated without giving any show-
cause notice to him or an opportunity of being heard. 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
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: ABHISHEK
CHATURVEDI
Signing time: 4/21/2026
6:15:35 PM

7 WP. No. 6454 of 2017

of Rs.3,73,306 /- to petitioner. The respondents shall pay interest @ 6% per
annum on Rs.3,73,306/- 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.
12. Let the exercise, as directed above, be completed within a period of 90
days from the date of submission of certified copy of this order.
13. The petition is, accordingly, disposed of .

Signature Not Verified
Signed by: ABHISHEK
CHATURVEDI
Signing time: 4/21/2026
6:15:35 PM