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. 5815 of 2010 NEKRAM SINGH Versus STATE OF M.P. AND OTHERS Appearance:

Shri Vinay Kumar Shah - Advocate for the petitioner.

Shri Sohit Mishra - Government Advocate for the respondents/State.

ORDER This petition, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, has been filed seeking the following reliefs:-

"(i) That, the order of Respondent No.2 (Annexure P/1) based on communication order dated 15.04.2010 of the Respondent No.3 may kindly be quashed.

(ii) That, the Petitioners may kindly be allowed to receive back the illegal recovery done by the Respondent no.4 and accordingly, action of the Respondents may please be saddled and Respondents be directed to refund Rs.39,907/- with interest.

(iii) That, the Petitioner may kindly be allowed to get the interest on the amount illegally recovered by the Respondents alongwith the Respondents may please also be saddled by the exemplary damages of Rs.10,000/- and be awarded to the Petitioner.

(iv) That, any other relief which the Court deems fit may please be granted, in the interest of justice.

(v) Cost of this unwanted petition."

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was retired on 31.01.2004 on attaining the age of superannuation on the post of Grade II of Water Resource Deptt. Thereafter, the petitioner filed a writ petition no.2347/2004 for quashing the recovery order dated 27.04.2007 which was allowed on 27.08.2009 with direction to the respondents to recover the recovery amount of Rs.73,600/- from the retiral dues of the petitioner. Thereafter, respondents have sanctioned the gratuity of Rs.1,43,550/-. Thereafter, by letter dated 15.04.2010, respondent No.5 has recovered Rs.39,907/- the alleged minus balance with panel interest @ 10.5 %. The impugned calculation sheet (Annexure P/1) was issued without giving any opportunity of being heard to the petitioner, without giving any show cause notice to the petitioner and without compliance of the principle of natural justice. The petitioner was already retired on 31.01.2004, therefore, after retirement, no recovery can be initiated from gratuity amount. Learned counsel for the petitioner also placed reliance upon the judgment of Division Bench of this Court in the case of Ramnarayan Sharma Vs. State of M.P. and Ors. decided on

06.03.2017 in W.A.No.357/2016.

3. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent/State submitted that the petitioner's GPF account was settled by respondent No.3 and that the answering respondents are not required to pay back any amount to the petitioner, as the petitioner does not have any amount to be paid back due to final deduction. Learned counsel for the respondent/State also placed reliance upon the order of Principal Seat, at Jabalpur in case of Ram Baksh Dwivedi Vs. State of M.P. and Ors. decided on 27.06.2024 in W.P.No.14080/2012 and submitted that as per Rule 14(7) of Rules, 1955, the Government has right to recover the amount from the petitioner as there is excess withdrawal of amount from GPF account of petitioner and minor balance was shown in the account, there was nothing illegal because the provision itself provide that the recovery can be made if excess withdrawal of amount is made form GPF account.

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

5. Admittedly, the petitioner retired on 31.01.2004 upon attaining the age of superannuation. However, the recovery proceedings were initiated by order dated 15.04.2010, i.e., after a lapse of more than six years from the date of retirement.

6. The controversy involved in the present case has already been decided by Division Bench of this Court by order dated 06.03.2017 in the case of Ramnarayan Sharma (Supra). Paragraphs 8 to 11 of the said order are held as under:-

"8. After hearing learned counsel for the parties, this Court is of the considered view that the present appeal is liab