ORDER

The present petition, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, has been preferred by the petitioner against illegal recovery of Rs.89,792/- from his pensionary claims in lieu of wrong refixation of the salary in the year 1991 and thereafter till attaining the age of superannuation.

2. The short facts of the case are that the petitioner was initially appointed on the post of Cook in the respondent department vide order dated 19.03.1990, which was a class-IV post. After joining the service on the said post, the petitioner continuted the service upto the age of superannuation. During his service tenure the petitioner was extended the benefit of first and second time bound pay scale and accordingly his pay fixation was done but as and when the petitioner retired on 31.07.2017, vide order dated 02.03.2018 further pay fixation was done and pay was revised and accordingly the aforesaid sum was directed to be recovered from the petitioner and eventuall was recovered from his retiral dues.

Aggrieved by the said recovery, the present petition has been filed.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has vehemently argued that admittedly, the petitioner is a Class-IV employee and in the light of judgment passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of State of Punjab vs. Rafiq Masih reported in (2015) 4 SCC 334 in cases of Class III and Class IV employees, recovery cannot be initiated after the retirement and admittedly, the petitioner has stood retired on 31.07.2017 and the order of recovery has been initiated on 02.03.2018, therefore, the impugned order is per se illegal.

4. It was further contended that the Ministry of Finance, Govt. of Madhya Pradesh has also issued a Circular vide order dated 31.03.2016, whereby specific directions had been issued to the authorities not to recover any amount from the class-III and Class-IV employees.

5. On the basis of aforesaid arguments, it was prayed that the present petition be allowed and the recovery of Rs.89,792/-be quashed and respondents be directed to refund the said amount with interest.

6. Per contra, Government Advocate appearing for the respondents/State has submitted that it is no more res integra that any amount paid in excess to the petitioner, for which he is not entitled can be recovered from his pensionary benefits in terms of Rule 65 from MP Civil Services (Pension) Rules. Further it is submitted that in the light of the judgment passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of High Court of Haryana and Punjab & Others vs. Jagdev Singh reported in (2016) 14 SCC 267, if an employe has given an undertaking at the time of his pay fixation then he is bound by such undertaking and the recovery thereof can be made from such employe and since the petitioner had given an undertaking at the time of his pay fixation, therefore, now at this juncture, he cannot say that no recovery can be initiated, since he is a class-IV retired employee. Further placing reliance on in the matter of Manoj Sharma vs. State of Madhya Pradesh & Others passed by the Division Bench of this Court in Writ Appeal No.293 of 2021 vide order dated 31.08.2021, it was contended that the government servants of any class (Class-I to Class-IV) who had given written undertaking promising to refund the excess amount are not immune from recovery. He has also placed reliance in the matter of Steel Authority of India Limited Vs. Raghvendra Singh [SLP(C) No.11025 of 2020, decided on 15.12.2020) wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court has opined that department/ employer is entitled to initiate recovery proceedings against the employees for legally recoverable amount and even the gratuity and other funds of the employees can be withheld. On the strength of the above arguments, it was prayed that the present petition being devoid of any merit is liable to the dismissed and the amount which has alrady been recovered cannot be directed to be refunded to the petitioner.

7. Heard the counsel for the parties and perused th