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

th

ON THE 24 OF FEBRUARY, 2026 WRIT PETITION No. 6398 of 2026 RAJNIWAS PANDEY Versus THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS Appearance:

Swapnil Sohgaura - Advocate for the petitioner [P-1].

Hitendra Singh G.A. appeared for respondent.

ORDER The petitioner is questioning the recovery after retirement who is superannuated on 31.08.2021. Counsel for the petitioner contends that the said course was not available with the respondents as there could not have been any recovery from the retired employee in view of the decision of the Full Bench of this Court in WA No.815/2017 ((State of M.P. & others Vs. Jagdish Prasad Dubey) wherein the Court has already decided the controversy, hence, the same deserves to be disposed of.

2 . Per contra, counsel for the State has opposed the prayer and submitted that there may be some undertaking as well as an indemnity bond, therefore, in view of the aforesaid, the petitioner is precluded from questioning the recovery.

3. 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