IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH

AT JABALPUR

BEFORE

HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE MANINDER S. BHATTI

th

ON THE 14 OF JANUARY, 2026

WRIT PETITION No. 12456 of 2017

DURGA SHANKAR BAJPAI

Versus

MANAGING DIRECTOR AND OTHERS

Appearance:

Shri Ajeet Kumar Singh - Advocate for the petitioner.

Shri Sankalp Kochar, counsel for the respondent along with

Shri Sughosh Bhamore appeared for respondent No.4.

ORDER petitioner was extended the benefit of increment as he was to be superannuated on 31/08/2016, therefore, he was extended the benefit of increment. The said benefit was sought to be withdrawn by the respondents on the strength of circular dated 26/12/2012 (Annexure R/1) filed along with IA No.12430/2023. Counsel contends that the petitioner could not have been victimized on the strength of said circular inasmuch as, consequences for extension of benefit despite availing of leave by the concerned employee have mentioned therein. As per second last paragraph of the circular, there exits no provision of recovery from the concerned employee, on the contrary, the same stipulates that the disciplinary action were proposed against the officials. Hence it is contended by the counsel that in view of the decision of 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 as well as Full Bench of this Court in Jagdish Prasad Dubey (Supra), impugned orders deserve quashement.Counsel for the petitioner also contends that the respondents be directed to release the pension of the petitioner by counting the said increment which was given to the petitioner on 01/07/2008.

The petitioner has assailed the order of recovery which according to

counsel was passed in the eve of his service carrier of the petitioner. It is contended by the counsel that the order contained in Annexure P/2 was passed when the petitioner was in employment, however, the impugned PPO issued after the retirement of the petitioner who was Class-III employee. Counsel for the petitioner contends that the said course was not available with the respondents as there could not have been any recovery from the retired employee in view of the decision of the Full Bench of this Court in WA No.815/2017 ((State of M.P. & others Vs. Jagdish Prasad Dubey) wherein the Court has already decided the controversy, hence, the

same deserves to be disposed of.

2. It is further contended by the counsel that in the case in hand the

3 . Per contra, counsel for the State has opposed the prayer and submitted that the petitioner was not entitled for the increment inasmuch as, the petitioner availed the leave between the period which is mentioned in the aforesaid circular contained in Annexure R/1 and accordingly, the order pertaining to recovery was passed.

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 require