Madhya Pradesh High Court
Sudhir Kumar Shrivastava vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 29 January, 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:3688
1 WP. No. 28138 of 2018
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT GWALIOR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE ANAND SINGH BAHRAWAT
ON THE 29th OF JANUARY, 2026
WRIT PETITION No. 28138 of 2018
SUDHIR KUMAR SHRIVASTAVA
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Niraj Shrivastava - Advocate for petitioner.
Smt. Smrati Sharma - Government Advocate for respondent/State.
ORDER
This petition, under Article 226 of Constitution of India, has been filed seeking the following relief (s):
"¼7-1½ fiVh'kuj dh fiVh'ku dks Lohdkj djrs gq;s mldks iwoZ esa çnku fd;k x;k mä osruo`f);ksa@osrueku dk ykHk çnku fd;s tkus o lsokfgr ykHkksa dk iqu% fu/kkZj.k djrs gq, ,oa lsokfgr ykHkksa esa ls vf/kd Hkqxrku dh olwyh :i;s 3]34]681@& ¼rhu yk[k pkSrhl gtkj N% lkS bD;klh :i;s½ dks ekuuh; U;k;ky; } kjk fn, x, leku fn'kk funsZ'kksa ds Øe esa lekurk ls C;kt lfgr 30 fnol esa Hkqxrku dj okfil çnku fd;s tkus ds funsZ'k vkns'k fjLiksUMsUV~l foHkkxh; çkf/kdkfj;ksa dks çnku djus dh --ik U;k;fgr esa djsaA ¼7-2½ vU; mfpr fjV] vkns'k vFkok funsZ'k U;k; fgr esa fiVh'kuj ds i{k esa tkjh djus dh --ik djsa] çdj.k O;; fjLiksUMsUV~l ls fnyk;s tkus dh --ik djsaA"
2. Learned counsel for petitioner submits that initially the petitioner was appointed on the post of Dy. Forest Ranger on 25.11.1980. Thereafter, on Signature Not Verified Signed by: PAWAN DHARKAR Signing time: 2/3/2026 7:58:54 PM NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:3688 2 WP. No. 28138 of 2018 31.08.2017, petitioner stood retired from the post of Dy. Forest Ranger which is class-III post. When the case of petitioner was sent for pension settlement on the verge of the retirement then at that time, Treasury raised objection for recovery on account of pay fixation. Thereafter, amount of Rs.3,34,681/- was recovered from the gratuity of petitioner.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that the petitioner was Dy. Forest Ranger i.e. Class-III post and the impugned recovery order has been issued without any notice or any opportunity of hearing and petitioner has not misrepresented at any point of time. An amount of Rs.3,34,681/- has been directed to be recovered and petitioner was not responsible for wrong pay fixation. On the aforesaid ground, counsel for petitioner prays for quashment of impugned recovery. He relied upon the Full Bench decision of this Court in the case of State of Madhya Pradesh & others Vs. Jagdish Prasad Dubey, 2024 (2) M.P.L.J.198.
4. Per contra, learned counsel for the State has opposed the prayer made by learned counsel for the petitioner and submitted that the excess amount was paid due to wrong pay fixation and the excess amount was recovered rightly from the gratuity of the petitioner. It is further submitted that the petitioner submitted an undertaking in the year 1990, 2009 and on 29.09.2017 stating that if any excess payment has been made to petitioner, the same may be recovered.
5. Heard learned counsel for the parties 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 Signature Not Verified Signed by: PAWAN DHARKAR Signing time: 2/3/2026 7:58:54 PM NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:3688 3 WP. No. 28138 of 2018 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 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 State of Punjab Vs. Rafiq Masih (White Washer), (2015) 4 SCC 334, 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:Signature Not Verified Signed by: PAWAN DHARKAR Signing time: 2/3/2026 7:58:54 PM
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:3688 4 WP. No. 28138 of 2018
(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 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 Signature Not Verified Signed by: PAWAN DHARKAR Signing time: 2/3/2026 7:58:54 PM NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:3688 5 WP. No. 28138 of 2018 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. Petitioner stood superannuated on 31.08.2017. Recovery was initiated without giving any show cause notice to him or opportunity of being heard. Petitioner was retired from the post of Dy. Forest Ranger which is a class-III post. Recovery of Rs.3,34,681/- was made from the gratuity amount. It is not reflected from the record that such payment was made to the petitioner on account of any fraud or misrepresentation by him and as per the judgment of Rafiq Masih (supra), recovery from employee belonging to class-III and class- IV is not permissible.
10. The respondents have not stated in their reply the date on which the wrong pay fixation was carried out, whereas the undertaking pertains to the year 1990, 2009 and 2017. As respondents have not filed any chart to show as to on which date the wrong pay fixation was carried out, therefore, benefit of doubt is extended in favour of petitioner. It was the duty of the respondents/State to file documents showing the date/year to which the alleged recovery pertains; however, the respondents have not filed any chart or statement indicating the date/year in which the wrong pay fixation was carried out. Therefore, the undertaking (Annexure R/1, A/3 and A/5) does not confer any benefit upon the respondents/State. Even otherwise, the respondents/State have not stated or demonstrated that the undertaking was given voluntarily. 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 Signature Not Verified Signed by: PAWAN DHARKAR Signing time: 2/3/2026 7:58:54 PM NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:3688 6 WP. No. 28138 of 2018 undertaking, which was not given voluntarily. On the strength of such undertaking, recovery can not be effected. 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 unless the undertaking is given voluntarily.
11. In view of the above discussion and observation, present petition is allowed and the recovery amount of Rs.3,34,681/- from the gratuity amount is hereby set aside. Respondents are directed to refund the amount of Rs.3,34,681/- to the petitioner. Consequently, recovery mentioned in the PPO/GPO is hereby quashed. The respondents shall pay interest @ 6% per annum on Rs.3,34,681/- w.e.f. the date of retirement i.e. 31.08.2017 till actual payment.
12. 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.
13. The petition is accordingly disposed of.
14. Pending interlocutory application, if any, is also disposed of.
(Anand Singh Bahrawat) Judge pd Signature Not Verified Signed by: PAWAN DHARKAR Signing time: 2/3/2026 7:58:54 PM