The Madhya Pradesh High Court has set aside a Rs 1.08 lakh recovery demand issued against the widow of a former state employee, ruling that excess salary payments granted without fraud or misrepresentation on the worker’s part cannot be reclaimed after his death.
In an August 17 ruling, Justice Deepak Khot held that state authorities acted unlawfully by revoking financial benefits and issuing the recovery order without providing the widow a prior hearing. The court noted that the administration presented no evidence that the deceased employee or his wife engaged in deception, misrepresentation, or material concealment to secure the pay adjustments.
Protection for Lower-Grade Employees
The decision emphasized that the late worker held a Class-III position as a government accountant. Under legal standards established by the Supreme Court in the Rafiq Masih case, state departments are barred from recovering monetary overpayments from lower-tier employees when the discrepancy stems entirely from administrative calculation errors rather than employee misconduct.
Additionally, the bench addressed the state’s reliance on indemnity documentation, noting that under the precedent established in the Jagdish Prasad Dubey case, an undertaking or indemnity bond cannot be invoked retroactively to retrieve funds disbursed several years prior.
Background of the Pay Dispute
The legal challenge arose from a state government order dated March 30, 2016, which instructed the recovery of Rs 1.08 lakh from the widow. Her husband had joined government service on January 21, 1982, and served until his passing on August 31, 2015. During his tenure, departmental authorities approved and granted him Kramonnati, or time-scale, salary revisions.
Following his death, officials reassessed his service record and contended that his pay scale should have taken effect on July 1, 2006, as indicated in his option form, rather than the April 1, 2006 date applied by the government at the time.
Lack of Procedural Fairness
Appearing for the petitioner, advocate Aniruddha Prasad Pandey argued that because competent government officials had sanctioned the original salary structure, the state could not legally demand reimbursement years later, particularly in the absence of misrepresentation or fraud.
The High Court accepted this stance, concluding that the state failed to demonstrate any fault on the employee’s part and violated basic procedural fairness by finalizing the recovery order without issuing a show-cause notice or offering the widow an opportunity to be heard.
