Recovery of excess payments from retired employees is impermissible under certain conditions, particularly relating to Class III and IV service classifications and time limits for recovery.

ORDER :

Ashish Shroti, J.

1. Regard being had to the similitude of the issue involved in this batch of writ petitions, they are heard analogously and decided by this common order. For convenience sake, facts of Writ Petition No.29642/2022 are taken into consideration.

2. The petitioners in these writ petitions have retired from the post of Assistant Sub-Inspector/Sub-Inspector (Ministerial). On account of certain disputes with regard to fixation of their salary, respondents have issued the impugned orders directing recovery of excess amount paid to the petitioners. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioners has challenged the impugned order of recovery on the ground that excess amount paid to the petitioners because of erroneous fixation of their salary can not be recovered from the petitioners from their retiral dues. He placed reliance upon the order passed by this Court in the case of Tahsildar Singh Vs. State of M.P. & Ors. in W.P. No.2629/2021 as also Full Bench judgment in the case of State of Madhya Pradesh & others Vs. Jagdish Prasad Dubey reported in 2024(2) M.P.L.J. 198.

4. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents/State supported the impugned order and submitted that since the excess amount was paid to the petitioners, respondents are entitled to recover the same.

5. Recently, the similar issue has been considered by the Division Bench at Principal Seat of this Court in the case of State of Madhya Pradesh and others Vs. Ramrao Bhimte (W.A. No.1657/2025) and in the similar circumstances, recovery has been quashed. The Division Bench of this Court has held as under:-.

"11. It is not in dispute that respondent joined the services as Constable (M) vide order dated 01.07.1981 and promoted time to time and superannuated w.e.f. 30.06.2017 from the post of S.I. (M). After almost more than seven years of his superannuation, a recovery order was issued by DIG Bhopal on the ground that from July 1981 to December 2005, Rs.3,01,852/- were paid in excess to the respondent and Rs.7,85,340/- were paid erroneously from January 2006 to December 2015 and therefore, total amount of Rs.10,87,192/- were recoverable in installments from the amount of pension.

12. The Supreme Court in the matter of State of Punjab and others Vs. Rafiq Masih (White Washer), reported in 2015 (4) SCC 334 , after considering the issue of hardship, which may be caused to the employee in case recovery is directed and held that no recovery is permissible from the employees belonging to Class III and Class IV. The relevant para of the judgment reads 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 hereinabove, we may, as a ready reference, summarise the following few situations, wherein recoveries by the employers, would be impermissible in law:

(i) Recovery from the employees belonging to Class III and Class IV service (or Group C and Group D service).

(ii) Recovery from the retired employees, or the employees who are due to retire within one year, of the order of recovery.

(iii) Recovery from the 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.

13. Full Bench of this Court has answered the issue in favour of employees that excess payment made to the employee cannot be recovered in the matter of State of