Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2025 DIGILAW 678 (MP)

Rakesh Mishra (Dr. ) v. State of M. P.

2025-12-08

JAI KUMAR PILLAI

body2025
ORDER 1. The petitioner is challenging the interest part on the principal amount of recovery, which has been recovered in the year 2014. The basis recovery was for sum of Rs. 72,964/- on account of wrong fixation made by the respondents for the period 1998 to 2009. Admittedly, the principal amount has been recovered from the petitioner when he was in service. Now the petitioner has been directed to refund an amount of Rs.1,63,813/- towards interest on the said principal amount. 2. Counsel for the petitioner submits that it is not the case of the respondents that any misrepresentation, fraud or cheating was played by the petitioner. It is argued that petitioner cannot be held to be responsible for the wrong fixation of pay. In support of his submission, he has placed reliance on the recent judgment passed by the apex Court in the case of Jogeswar Sahoo & Ors. v. The District Judge, Cuttack & Ors arising out of SLP(C) No.5918/2024. The apex Court, referring to the earlier judgments passed by the apex Court in the case of Sahib Ram v. State of Haryana (1995) Supp(1) SCC 18, Shyam Babu Verma v. Union of India (1994) 2 SCC 521 , Union of India v. M.Bhaskar (1996) 4 SCC 416 and V.Gangaram v. Regional Jt. Director (1997) 6 SCC 139 , and in a recent decision in the matter of Thomas Daniel. v. State of Kerala & Ors. (2022) SCC Online SC 536, has quashed the order of recovery. 3. Counsel for the State submitted that the State has the right to recover the interest on the excess payment and the action of the recovery of interest amount cannot be in any stretch of imagination can be said to be illegal or contrary to any law. 4. After hearing learned counsel for parties and considering the facts of the present case, this Court finds that it is not the case of the respondents that any misrepresentation, suppression or fraud was committed by the employee in the wrong fixation of pay. The undertaking is not for the relevant period. 4. After hearing learned counsel for parties and considering the facts of the present case, this Court finds that it is not the case of the respondents that any misrepresentation, suppression or fraud was committed by the employee in the wrong fixation of pay. The undertaking is not for the relevant period. In the light of the judgment passed by the apex Court in the case of Sahibram, Shyambabu, M. Bhaskar, V.Gangaram, Thomas Daniel and Jogeswar Sahu (supra), and in view of the Full Bench judgment of this Court in case of The State of Madhya Pradesh & Others v. Jagdish Prasad Singh reported in 2024 SCC OnLine MP 1567, the recovery is quashed and it is directed that the amount of interest recovered from the petitioner after his retirement from the retiral dues shall be returned to him within a period of 90 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order from the date of recovery till the date of payment. 5. With the aforesaid, the petition is allowed and disposed off.