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

th

ON THE 6 OF FEBRUARY, 2026 WRIT PETITION No. 494 of 2026 JAGANNATH VISHWAKARMA Versus THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS Appearance:

Shri Ajeet Kumar Singh - Advocate for the petitioner.

Shri Darshan Soni - Government Advocate for the State.

ORDER The petitioner has filed this petition while prayer for the following reliefs:

"(i) It is, therefore, prayed that this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue writ in the nature certiorari and quash the impugned order dated 01-07-2025 (Annexure P-1) passed by respondent no.3 and quash the recovery and direct the respondents to restored the benefits which has been taken away by the Impugned order with all service benefits and respondents be further directed to refund the recovered amount to the petitioner within stipulated period with interest.

(ii) This Hon'ble Court be further pleased to pass any such other orders as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit under the circumstances of the case."

2. The counsel for the petitioner contends that the petitioner who was working as Sub Inspector was superannuated way back on 31.03.2025. After retirement of the petitioner, vide Annexure P/1 dated 01.07.2025, an amount of Rs.1,65,933/- and also an amount of Rs.1,52,713/- (total amount of Rs. 3,18,646/-) have been ordered to be recovered. Counsel contends that recovery was carried out on the allegation that excess payment was made to the petitioner during his services tenure. Counsel contends that the issue is no more res integra as recovery is not permissible in view of the law laid down by the Apex Court in State of Punjab and others v. Rafiq Masih (White Washer) and others - (2015) 4 SCC 334.

3. Counsel for the State submits that the excess payment was made to the petitioner and therefore, in order to recover the excess amount, impugned order dated 01.07.2025 (Annexure P/1) was issued. There is no irregularity in recovering the excess amount from the petitioner.

4. Having considered the submissions, a perusal of the record reflects that it is a case where recovery was carried out against the petitioner after retirement. Such controversy has already been conclusively decided by the Apex Court in the case of Rafiq Masih (supra) wherein the Apex Court has 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. The controversy came up for consideration in W.A. No. 815 of 2017 (State of M.P. & others Vs. Jagdish Prasad Dubey) wherein vide order dated 06.03.2024 the Full Bench of this Court considered the following three questions:

"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