IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT GWALIOR BEFORE HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE ANAND SINGH BAHRAWAT

th

ON THE 19 OF FEBRUARY, 2026 WRIT PETITION No. 3923 of 2018 BAHADUR SINGH RAGHUVANSHI Versus THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS Appearance:

Shri Madhav Singh Rana - Advocate for the petitioner.

Ms. Smrati Sharma - Government Advocate for the respondent/State.

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

"(1) Hence, it is humbly prayed that the petition of the petitioner may kindly be allowed and the writ of certiorari or any other suitable writ, order or direction as this Hon. Court may deem fit in the facts and circumstances of the case, quashing the impugned action of withdrawing the benefit of time scale of pay which was granted to the petitioner under F.R. Rules for satisfactory work of the petitioner and increments are granted on that basis, and recovering the same from retiral dues with interest being illegal and contrary to law.

(2) The respondents may kindly be directed to recalculate the entire retiral dues and re-fixing the pension of the petitioner and pension payment order may kindly be directed to be revised accordingly;

(3) That, the respondents may kindly be directed to refund the entire recovered amount from the petitioner with market rate of interest;

(4) Any other relief which is just and proper may also be allowed;"

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner was initially appointed on the post of Constable. He was promoted to the post of Head Constable and again promoted to the post of ASI. Petitioner was retired on attaining the age of superannuation on 30.06.2016 from the post of ASI. Petitioner was extended the benefit of revision of pay rules from time to time and the relevant entries are made in his service record. Thereafter, without issuance of any show-cause notice, without affording any opportunity of hearing and in clear violation of the principles of natural justice, recovery of Rs.6,81,135/- has been initiated from the pension and retiral benefits of petitioner. It is further submitted that the petitioner has neither misrepresented any fact nor suppressed any material facts from the respondents. The wrong pay fixation was carried out by the department, and the petitioner is not at fault in any manner. The recovery cannot be initiated after the retirement of the petitioner. Moreover, since the petitioner is a Class-III employee, such recovery is impermissible in view of the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in State of Punjab & Ors. v. Rafiq Masih (White Washer), reported in (2015) 4 SCC 334.

3. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent/State submits that when the petitioner superannuated then the petitioner's case was sent to District Pension Officer District Guna, who raised the objections and intimated the objections vide memo dated 10.08.2016. The Superintendent of Police, District Guna rectified the mistake and issued the order dated 19.09.2016 reflecting the pay to which the petitioner was entitled from

01.01.2006 up to date of retirement including the imposition of departmental penalty. It is further submitted that the service book reflected that the recovery has to be made from 01.01.2006 for excess payment and since there is endorsement in the service book regarding stoppage of one increment with non cumulative effect. This entry in the service book is on the date 21.07.2009, therefore, treasury has also endorsed in the service book that the penalty order was not executed. Thereafter, different amount as per recovery chart (Annexure R/4) has been made against the petitioner.

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

5. When the petitioner superannuated, his case was forwarded to the District Pension Officer, District Guna, who raised certain objections and communicated the same vide memo dated 10.08.2016. Thereafter, the Superintendent of Police, District Guna rectified the error