Madhya Pradesh High Court
Pradeep Kumar Shrivastava vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 8 August, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:37284
1 WP-36499-2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VIVEK JAIN
ON THE 8 th OF AUGUST, 2025
WRIT PETITION No. 36499 of 2024
PRADEEP KUMAR SHRIVASTAVA
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Atul Kumar Rai - Advocate for the Petitioner.
Smt. Shraddha Tiwari - Panel Lawyer for the Respondent/State.
ORDER
The petitioner is a retired ministerial employee of the police force and he
challenges the Order of recovery issued after retirement of the employee who was
working as Sub Inspector (Ministerial) in the M.P. Police Force. The recovery has
been ordered vide Order dated 18.04.2017 (Annexure P-1) and recovery is after
retirement of Class III employee on 30.06.2016. The recovery includes
Rs.6,59,436/- as principal amount.
2. It is contended that initially various other Ministerial employees had filed
writ petitions before this court and recovery ordered from the similarly situated
employees was set aside only as to the interest part and not for the principal part.
Thereafter in various other cases, the Coordinate Benches of this Court have set
aside the recovery from Ministerial employees of the police for the principal part
also even after considering the affect of judgment of the Supreme Court in case of
S.H. Baig and Others Vs. State of M.P. and Others (Civil Appeal No.9888-9899 of
2018). This was ordered in W.P. No.19539/2020 (Umakanti Parihar Vs. State of
M.P. and Others) by the Gwalior Bench of this Court.
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: KRISHNA SINGH
Signing time: 8/8/2025
6:15:59 PM
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:37284
2 WP-36499-2024
3. Subsequently, another Coordinate Bench of this Court in W.P.
No.2629/2021 (Tehsildar Singh Vs. State of M.P. and Others) has also quashed
the recovery of principal as well as interest part of Ministerial employees of the
police.
4. In W.P. No.2629 of 2021, the Coordinate Bench of this Court has passed
the following order:-
“Petitioners have filed these writ petitions challenging their
respective orders of recovery, whereby certain amount has been
directed to be recovered from them towards amount paid in excess on
account of certain benefits granted to them erroneously. The amount of
recovery also includes the interest on the excess amount paid.
2. The petitioner in W.P. No.2649/2021 (Om Prakash Singh
Sikarwar) was initially appointed as Assistant Sub Inspector (M). In
course of time, he was promoted to the post of Sub Inspector (M),
Accountant and then ultimately as Head Clerk/Subedar (M). He retired
on attaining the age of superannuation w.e.f. 31/8/2015. Since, there
was some dispute pending with regard to anomaly in fixation of his
salary, this petitioner was initially sanctioned anticipatory pension. The
respondents vide order dated 13/5/2020 (Annexure P/3) revised his
pay-scale in view of judgment of Apex Court in the case of S.H. Baig
& Ors. Vs. State of M.P. & Ors. reported in (2018)10 SCC 621 and
consequently, also revised his anticipatory pension vide order dated
14/7/2029 (Annexure P/4). Later on, the impugned order was passed on
2/11/2020 (Annexure P/1) whereby an amount of Rs.28,17,508/- has
been directed to be recovered from the petitioner which includes anSignature Not Verified
Signed by: KRISHNA SINGH
Signing time: 8/8/2025
6:15:59 PM
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:372843 WP-36499-2024
amount of Rs.15,64,163/- towards the excess amount paid and
Rs.12,53,345/- is directed to be recovered towards interest.
3. The petitioner in W.P. No. 2646/2021 (Keshav Singh) was
appointed as Assistant Sub Inspector (M) on 15/10/1984 and he retired
from service w.e.f. 30/6/2016. His anticipatory pension was also
revised vide order dated 13/5/2020 (Annexure P/3) and his pension was
revised vide order dated 14/7/2020 (Annexure P/4). The respondents
vide order dated 1/9/2020 (Annexure P/1) directed recovery of an
amount of Rs.20,60,641/- out of which Rs.11,40,066/- was to be
recovered towards excess payment while Rs.9,20,576/- was directed to
be recovered towards interest.
4. Likewise, the petition in W.P. No.2629/2021 (Tehsildar
Singh) was initially appointed as Daftari on 2/8/1965 and was later on
re-designated as Head Constable (M). He retired from service on
attaining the age of superannuation w.e.f. 31/8/2009. Like others, his
salary was also revised vide order dated 22/6/2020 (Annexure P/3)
while his pension was revised vide order dated 14/7/2020 (Annexure
P/4). The recovery of an amount of Rs.11,85,707/- was directed against
him, out of which Rs.6,73,729/- was to be recovered towards excess
amount paid to him while Rs.5,11,978/- was to be recovered towards
interest.
5. The State Govt. created new Police Ranks (Ministerial) in the
State Police Force under Section 2 of the Police Act, 1861. The
Ministerial employees though equated with executive posts, but it was
decided to continue to draw emoluments in their existing pay scales or
as may be revised from time to time. This gave rise to litigation filedSignature Not Verified
Signed by: KRISHNA SINGH
Signing time: 8/8/2025
6:15:59 PM
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:372844 WP-36499-2024
before erstwhile State Administrative Tribunal and ultimately travelled
upto Apex Court and was decided by Apex Court in the case of S.H.
Baig (supra). After the decision of Apex Court in S.H. Baig case, the
action was taken by the respondents to re-fix the salary of the
ministerial employees which has resulted into impugned recovery. It be
noted that by the time impugned recovery orders were passed, the
petitioners already retired from service on attaining the age of
superannuation.
6. The respondents have re-fixed the salary/pension of the
petitioners and have also passed separate orders directing recovery of
excess amount together with interest. The petitioners have not
challenged the orders of refixation of their salary/pension. Meaning
thereby, they have accepted the factum of wrong fixation and
consequent revision of their salary/pension. The issue is, therefore,
only about the recovery of the excess amount from them after
retirement.
7. The learned counsel for the petitioners placed reliance upon
the Full Bench decision 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 as also Apex Court decision in the case of State of Punjab
Vs. Rafiq Masih (White Washer) reported in (2015)4 SCC 334 and
submitted that even if the amount was paid to petitioners in excess, the
same cannot be recovered from the petitioners after their retirement. He
also submitted that the hardships being faced by the petitioners is also
required to be looked into. He, therefore, submitted that impugned
recovery from the retiral dues of petitioners, is not sustainable and
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: KRISHNA SINGH
Signing time: 8/8/2025
6:15:59 PM
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:37284
5 WP-36499-2024
liable to be quashed. Alternatively, he also submitted that since the
petitioners were not responsible for wrong fixation, the amount towards
interest cannot be recovered from them.
8. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State justified the
impugned recovery and submitted that after the judgment of the Apex
Court in the case of S.H. Baig (supra), the respondents reconsidered the
cases of all the employees and re-fixed their salary/pension. The
petitioners were not entitled to amount at higher rate. The excess
amount paid to such employees, on account of erroneous fixation of
their salary, is required to be recovered from them. He submitted that,
in similar case, the High Court in the case of Smt. Sushma Tiwari Vs.
State of M.P. & Ors. passed in W.A. No.1760/2007 has upheld the
action of recovery of amount vide judgment dated 21/4/2011. The
learned counsel also relied upon the judgment passed by the Apex
Court in the case of State of Punjab & Haryana Vs. Jagdev Singh
reported in (2016)14 SCC 267. The learned counsel for the State also
placed reliance upon the orders passed by the coordinate Benches of
this Court in the case of Smt. Shiv Kumari Kshetri & Ors. vs. State of
M.P. & Ors. passed in W.P. No.4445/2005, Rajedra Bhawsar Vs. State
of M.P. & Ors. passed in W.P. No.826/2017 and Smt. Sobha Jadhav
Vs. State of M.P. & Ors. passed in W.P. No.26972/2019.
9. The learned counsel for the State further submitted that since
the petitioners have submitted an indemnity bond, where they have
undertaken to refund the amount in case of excess payment, they are
bound by said undertaking and, therefore, now they cannot dispute the
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: KRISHNA SINGH
Signing time: 8/8/2025
6:15:59 PM
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:37284
6 WP-36499-2024
recovery being made by the respondents.
10. Considered the arguments and perused the record.
11. The Full Bench of this Court has settled the issue of recovery
of the amount from the employee after his retirement in the case of
Jagdish Prasad Dubey (supra), wherein the Full Bench has issued the
following directions:- “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. Conversely an 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
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: KRISHNA SINGH
Signing time: 8/8/2025
6:15:59 PM
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:37284
7 WP-36499-2024
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.”
12. In view of aforesaid legal position, if the undertaking
furnished by petitioners in W.P. No.2629/2021 & W.P. No.2646/2021
is seen, it is gathered that the undertaking has been submitted at the
time of retirement. Therefore, in view of the directions issued by the
Full Bench in para 35(a), such an undertaking cannot be relied upon by
the respondents to justify the recovery which relates back to a long
time ago during the service tenure of the employee. Further, as
observed by the Full Bench, the hardship of the concerned employee is
also required to be looked into. These are the cases where petitioners
were working as ministerial staff of the Police Department. They have
retired long back in the year 2009, 2015 & 2016. The amount directed
to be recovered from them is also huge. The recovery of amount from
their retiral dues would certainly cause serious hardship to the
petitioners. So far as W.P. No.2649/2021 is concerned, there is no
undertaking filed on record by the respondents.
13. As far as judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Jagdev
Singh (supra) is concerned, the Apex Court permitted recovery from
the employee therein in view of the undertaking given by him.
However, the undertaking in the present case cannot be relied upon by
respondents in view of subsequent Full Bench decision of the High
Court in the case of Jagdish Prasad Dubey (supra). Therefore, the
judgment rendered by the Apex Court in the case of Jagdev Singh
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: KRISHNA SINGH
Signing time: 8/8/2025
6:15:59 PM
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:37284
8 WP-36499-2024
(supra) is of no help to the respondents.
14. The other judgments relied upon by the counsel for the
respondents which are passed by the coordinate Benches of this Court
also relates to the period prior to the judgment of Jagdish Prasad Dubey
(supra) and are passed relying upon Jagdev Singh . Thus, in view of
subsequent Full Bench judgment of this Court, the judgment passed by
the coordinate Bench of this Court are also of no help to the
respondents.
15. The Apex Court decision in the case of Rafiq Masih (supra),
therefore, is also worth notable at this stage, wherein, in para 18 Apex
Court issued following directions:- “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.
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: KRISHNA SINGH
Signing time: 8/8/2025
6:15:59 PM
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:37284
9 WP-36499-2024
(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.”
16. It is seen from the impugned orders that a huge amount is
sought to be recovered from the petitioners towards interest. These are
not the cases where the petitioners are held responsible for erroneous
fixation of the salary. Therefore, even if for the sake of arguments it is
presumed that respondents are entitled to recover excess amount, the
respondents cannot be allowed to recover the interest from the
petitioners.
17. In view of aforesaid discussion of facts and law, particularly
in view of the judgment of Full Bench of this Court in the case of
Jagdish Prasad Dubey (supra) and Apex Court judgment in the case of
Rafiq Masih (supra), the impugned orders of recovery are not
sustainable in law. The impugned recovery orders in respect of each
petitioner are accordingly quashed. If any amount is recovered from the
petitioners, the same be refunded to them, alongwith interest @ 6% per
annum from the date of its recovery till actual payment.
18. All these three petitions are accordingly allowed and
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: KRISHNA SINGH
Signing time: 8/8/2025
6:15:59 PM
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:37284
10 WP-36499-2024
disposed of.”
5. The counsel for the State though has vehemently opposed the petition but
is not in a position to point out any distinguishing feature in the present case.
6. The same view has been taken recently also by a Division Bench of this
Court in W.A.No.1657/2025 (State of M.P. & Others Vs. Ramrao Bhimte) .
7. Resultantly, the petition is allowed in similar terms as decided by the
Coordinate Bench of this Court in case of Tehsildar Singh (supra) and the
recovery of interest (if any) as well as principal part ordered to be recovered from
the petitioner is hereby set aside. If any amount has already been recovered, the
same be refunded to the petitioner within a period of three months from the date of
production of certified copy of this order, failing which the amount will carry
interest @ 6% p.a. from the date of this order till actual payment.
8. Accordingly, the petition stands allowed and disposed off.
(VIVEK JAIN)
JUDGE
veni
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: KRISHNA SINGH
Signing time: 8/8/2025
6:15:59 PM