IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT JABALPUR BEFORE HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE DEEPAK KHOT

th

ON THE 27 OF NOVEMBER, 2025 WRIT PETITION No. 13227 of 2021 RAM SAKHA MISHRA Versus THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS Appearance:

Shri Raj Kumar Tripathi - Advocate for the petitioner.

Shri Neeraj Tiwari - Panel Lawyer for the respondent/State.

ORDER The present petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been filed seeking following reliefs :

"(i) To call for the concerned record relating to the petitioner from the respondents for kind perusal of this Hon'ble Court.

(ii). To issue a writ in the nature of certiorari, this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to quash the impugned orders dated 16.4.2020 (Annex.P/1) and the Treasury objection dated 16.7.2020 (Annex.P/2) in the interest of justice.

(iii) To issue writ in the nature of mandamus, this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to direct the respondents to refund the amount which was deducted from the pension of the petitioner in view of the orders Annexures P/1 and P/2 in the interest of justice.

(iv) To issue writ in the nature of mandamus this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to direct the respondents to make payment of interest of total recovered amount at the rate of 18% per annum from the date of recovery in the interest of justice.

(v) Any other writ or direction this Hon'ble Court deems fit may be also be granted in favour of the petitioner."

2. Brief facts of the case are that the petitioner retired from the post of Supervisor from Community Health Centre, Rewa on attaining the age of superannuation on 31.03.2020. The petitioner was given an additional increment pursuant to 6th Pay Commission vide order dated 01.07.2011 and accordingly fixation was done. Thereafter, vide order dated 20.03.2018 (Annexure P/6) re-fixation was done on the ground that the earlier fixation was erroneous resulting in excess payment of Rs.1,78,814/-. Interest of Rs.1,56,797/- on the excess payment was also calculated by the authorities. The amount of Rs.1,78,814/- has been recovered from the petitioner vide order dated 16.04.2020 (Annexure P/1).

3. It is contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner being a Class-III employee, recovery of excess payment cannot be done by the respondents as the same is not based on any misrepresentation or fraud on part of the petitioner. Hence, prayed for quashment of the impugned orders.

4. Per contra, counsel for the respondent-State has submitted that the recovery has been effected on the basis of the indemnity bonds taken during service and also after retirement of the petitioner while preparation of Pension Payment Order. Learned counsel for the respondent has shown on Board the documents of the office of Chief Medical and Health Officer, District Rewa to demonstrate that an amount of Rs.2,08,169/- has been recovered from the salary of the petitioner pursuant to the order dated 20.03.2018 and remaining amount of Rs.1,56,797/- has been deposited by the petitioner through challan dated 15.09.2020. It is submitted that since the amount was recovered from the petitioner when he was in service but he did not raise any objection to the same and after his retirement on 31.03.2020, he has deposited the remaining amount through challan which goes to show that he had no objection to the order of recovery. Thereafter, in the year 2021, the petitioner has filed the present petition alleging the recovery orders to be bad in law. On the basis prayed for dismissal of the petition.

5. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

6. Having considered the submissions and on perusal of the record it is evident that it is a case where recovery was carried out against the petitioner who was a class-III employee. Such controversy has already been conclusively decided by the Apex Court in the case of State of Punjab vs. Rafiq Masih (2015) 4 SCC 334; wherein the Apex Court has held in paragraph 18 as under:

"18. It is not possible to postulate all situation