IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT GWALIOR BEFORE HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE ANAND SINGH BAHRAWAT th ON THE 10 OF FEBRUARY, 2026 WRIT PETITION No. 18231 of 2018 SMT. RANI BAI Versus THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS Appearance:

None for petitioner.

Shri Prabhat Pateriya – Government Advocate for respondent/State.

ORDER

This petition, under Article 226 of Constitution of India, has been filed seeking the following relief (s):-

“(i) That, impugned recovery order dated 23.11.2017 may kindly be quashed.

(ii) That, the amount of Rs.69,270 recovered from the petitioner may kindly be refunded along with interest.

(iii) Any other relief the Hon'ble court deems fit to grant looking to the facts and circumstances of the case.”

2. As per the memo of present petition, initially petitioner was appointed as Class IV employee in the respondent/department on 04.07.1989. Petitioner stood retired on 31.05.2017. At the time of retirement, service book was referred to the respondent No.4 to check whether increment of wages and pay fixation was done as per Rules or not and as per objection raised, recovery of Rs.69,270/- has been ordered. She duly submitted Rs.69,270/- through challan as she had no other option for release of her retiral dues. It is further averred in this petition that without giving any show-cause notice or without affording an opportunity of hearing, without following the principle of natural justice and on the basis of objections raised by respondent No.4 impugned recovery has been initiated, calculating recovery to the tune of Rs.69,270/-. It is further mentioned that petitioner stood retired as Class IV employee and recovery after retirement of employee is not permissible. It is submitted that alleged excess amount has been paid on account of wrong fixation of salary of petitioner carried out from 01.01.2006 till the date of her retirement i.e.31.05.2017, however, petitioner is not responsible for wrong fixation. To strengthen his submission, learned counsel for petitioner placed reliance on the Full Bench decision of this Court in the case of State of Madhya Pradesh & others Vs. Jagdish Prasad Dubey reported in (2024) 2 M.P.L.J.198

3. Per contra, learned counsel for the State opposed the prayer made in the instant petition and submitted that the excess amount was paid on account of erroneous fixation of salary and therefore, the respondents are entitled to recover the amount paid in excess. The amount of excess payment is recoverable in terms of Rule 65 of the M.P. Civil Services Pension Rules. Further, the principle laid down by Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of State of Punjab Vs. Rafiq Masih (White Washer), (2015) 4 SCC 334 is not applicable in case of petitioner.

4. Considered the averments made in the memo of petition as well as submissions put forth by learned counsel for the State and perused the record.

5. The Full Bench of this Court in the case of Jagdish Prasad Dubey (supra), has dealt with the similar issue and held as under:

"35. (a) Question No. 1 is answered by holding that recovery can be effected from the pensionary benefits or from the salary based on the undertaking or the indemnity bond given by the employee before the grant of benefit of pay refixation. The question of hardship of a Government servant has to be taken note of in pursuance to the judgment passed by the Larger Bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Syed Abdul Qadir (supra). The time period as fixed in the case of Rafiq Masih (supra) reported in (2015) 4 SCC 334 requires to be followed. Converselyan undertaking given at the stage of payment of retiral dues with reference to the refixation of pay or increments done decades ago cannot be enforced.

(b) Question No. 2 is answered by holding that recovery can be made towards the excess payment made in terms of Rules 65 and 66 of the Rules of 1976 provided that the entire procedures as contemplated in Chapter VIII of the Rules of 1976 are followed by the employer. However, no recovery can be m