IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT GWALIOR BEFORE HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE ANAND SINGH BAHRAWAT ON THE 25^th OF FEBRUARY, 2026 WRIT PETITION No. 22093 of 2017 SMT. ASHA TIWARI Versus THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH THR AND OTHERS Appearance:

Shri Anil Kumar Shrivastava - Advocate for the petitioner.

Shri B.M. Patel - 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 impugned action where by amount of Rs,40197:00/-, deducted from the petitioner may kindly be quashed. And same kindly be directed to refund back to the petitioner with the interest of 12% p.a.

(II) That, it may kindly be held that the benefit of Kramonnati is rightly granted to the petitioner.

(III) That the petitioner may further be allowed to the benefit of Kramonnati from the due date of 01-07-2008 and all consequential pension relief may be revised accordingly.

(IV) That, any other relief, which this Hon'ble Highcourt may deem, fit with cost of the petition."

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner limited his prayer on the recovery part. It is submitted by learned counsel for petitioner that initially petitioner was appointed as Assistant Teacher in year year 1984. Petitioner stood retired on 31.03.2017. At the time of retirement, service book was referred to the Join Director, Treasury, Accounts and Pension Department to check whether increment of wages and pay fixation was done as per Rules or not and as per their objection, petitioner was given excess payment. On that basis, recovery of Rs.40,197/- has been ordered.

3. Learned counsel for petitioner submits 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/Treasury Officer, impugned order of recovery Annexure P-1, calculating recovery to the tune of Rs.40,197/- was issued. Learned counsel for petitioner submits that petitioner stood retired from the post of Assistant Teacher which is a Class III post 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, 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.

4. Per contra, learned counsel for the State opposed the prayer 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. It is further submitted that petitioner was granted two increments from 17.02.1986 for which he was not entitled to.

5. Considered the submissions put forth by learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

6. 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