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

nd

ON THE 2 OF FEBRUARY, 2026 WRIT PETITION No. 20965 of 2016 LAXMAN PRASAD TIWARIDF Versus THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS Appearance:

Shri Ajeet Kumar Singh - Advocate for the petitioner appears through V.C.

Ms. Shraddha Tiwari - Panel Lawyer for the respondent/State.

Shri Mukesh Kumar Agrawal - Advocate for the respondent Nos. 2 to 5 appears through V.C.

ORDER This is a petition by which the petitioner is seeking quashment of the order dated 06.07.2015 contained in Annexure P/1.

2. It is contended by the counsel that the petitioner, who superannuated on

31.11.2015, is questioning the recovery which has been carried out after retirement. Counsel for the petitioner contends that the said course was not available with the respondents as there could not have been any recovery from a retired employee in view of the decision of the Apex Court in the case of State of Punjab and others vs Rafiq Masih and others reported in 2015 (4) SCC 334 as well as in view of decision of the Full Bench of this Court in W.A. No. 815 of 2017 (State of M.P. and others Vs. Jagdish Prasad Dubey) vide order dated

06.03.2024.

3. Learned counsel for the respondent/State does not dispute that the law is no more res integra. Learned counsel for the respondent Nos. 2 to 5 contends that the order of recovery has been rightly issued as the benefits were incorrectly extended to the present petitioner. It is contended by the counsel that in view of the averments made in the return, the petitioner is not entitled for anything as prayed for.

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 jud