Recovery of excess salary from retired employees for erroneous pay fixation is impermissible absent fraud or misrepresentation.

The petitioner, a retired government servant, superannuated from service on June 30, 2016

Subsequent to his retirement, the respondents issued an order dated January 18, 2019, seeking to recover excess payments made to the petitioner due to an alleged erroneous fixation of the 7th Pay Scale

The respondents justified this recovery by citing an undertaking signed by the petitioner on October 13, 2017

The petitioner challenged the recovery order via a writ petition under Article 226, contending that the erroneous fixation was solely attributable to the respondents and involved no fraud or misrepresentation on his part

The Court relied on the landmark judgment of the Supreme Court in State of Punjab v. Rafiq Masih (2015), which prohibits recovery from retired employees or employees due to retire within one year

It applied the principle from Syed Abdul Kadir v. State of Bihar (2009) regarding the hardship caused by such recoveries

The Court further followed the Full Bench decision of the Madhya Pradesh High Court in State of M.P. v. Jagdish Prasad Dubey (2024), which held that undertakings given at the stage of receiving retiral dues for refixations done years prior are "forced undertakings" and unenforceable

The Court noted the mandatory procedures for recovery under Rules 65 and 66 of the M.P. Civil Services Pension Rules, 1976

The Court observed that the recovery was initiated nearly three years after the petitioner’s retirement

It held that the error in pay fixation was an administrative lapse not attributable to the petitioner, and since no fraud was committed by him, the protection under Rafiq Masih applied

Regarding the undertaking, the Court applied the Jagdish Prasad Dubey precedent to conclude that an undertaking signed post-retirement or at the time of receiving pensionary benefits is not voluntary but "forced," rendering it legally invalid for the purpose of recovery

Furthermore, the Court found that the respondents had bypassed the mandatory procedural requirements of Rules 65 and 66 of the 1976 Pension Rules, which are essential for any such recovery from a retiree

The respondents were directed to refund any recovered amount to the petitioner within three months

However, the Court denied the petitioner’s claim for 12% interest, noting that while the recovery occurred in 2019, the petitioner only approached the Court in 2026

The writ petition was allowed and disposed of accordingly