IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT JABALPUR BEFORE HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE MANINDER S. BHATTI

th

ON THE 15 OF DECEMBER, 2025 WRIT PETITION No. 48459 of 2025 SANDEEP KAURAV Versus THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS Appearance:

Shri Sanjay Kumar Malvi - Advocate for the petitioner.

Shri Varun Jain - Panel Lawyer for the State.

ORDER The petitioner is assailing the order impugned dated 10.11.2025 (Annexure P-1) by which the recovery was carried out against the father of the petitioner. It is contended by the counsel that the father of the petitioner while working as Upper Division Clerk cum Accountant got superannuated on 30.6.2020 and died on 22.10.2024. It is submitted that after more than five years from retirement of his father,the impugned order of recovery dated 10.11.2025 (Annexure P-1) and the said recovery was said to be carried out on the ground that pay fixation of the petitioner was incorrect and therefore, the said amount was required to be recovered.

2. It is contended by the counsel that the issue is no more res integra that there cannot be any recovery after retirement as the Full Bench of this Court in WA No.815/2017 ((State of M.P. & others Vs. Jagdish Prasad Dubey) has already decided the controversy, hence, the same deserves to be disposed of.

3 . Per contra, counsel for the State has opposed the prayer and submitted that as there exists an undertaking, the amount has been rightly recovered from the petitioner, thus, the petition deserved to be dismissed.

4. Having considered the submission and perusal of the record reflects that it is a case where the recovery was carried out after retirement and such eventualities were taken note of by the Apex Court in the case of State of Punjab and others v. Rafiq Masih (White Washer) and others reported in (2015) 4 SCC 334 wherein the Apex Court held in paragraph 18 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."

5. Thereafter, the controversy came up for consideration before the Full Bench of this Court as well in Jagdish Prasad (Supra) wherein the following questions were framed by the Full Bench:-

"1. Whether the recovery can be ordered to be affected from the pensionary benefits or from the salary in view of an undertaking or Indemnity Bond taken by the employer before the grant of benefit of pay refixation.

2. Whether the recovery on account of excess payment to an employee can be made in exercise of power conferred under Rule

65 of M.P Civil Services Pension Rules, 1976.

3. Whether the undertaking sought at the time of grant of financial benefits on account of refixation of pay is a forced undertaking and thus not enforceable in light of judgment of Supreme Court in (1986) 3 SCC 136 (Central Inland Water Transport Corporation Limited and Another Vs. Brojo Nath Gangu