Madhya Pradesh High Court
Brij Lal Sisodiya vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 1 August, 2025
Author: Milind Ramesh Phadke
Bench: Milind Ramesh Phadke
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:16273
1 WP-19762-2020
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT GWALIOR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE MILIND RAMESH PHADKE
ON THE 1 st OF AUGUST, 2025
WRIT PETITION No. 19762 of 2020
BRIJ LAL SISODIYA
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Bhanu Prakash Singh - Advocate for the petitioner.
Shri Ravindra Dixit - GA for the respondents/State.
ORDER
The present petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has
been filed by the petitioner seeking following reliefs:-
"7.1 That, the orders dated 27/08/2019, 14-15/11/2019 & 03-01-2020 (Annexures P/1, P/2 and
P/3) may please be quashed and the Correct Pension, Gratuity & Pensionary benefits etc. may.
please be directed to be granted, w.e.f. 01-01-2018 to the Petitioner as per Pension rules & settled
legal propositions.
7.2 That, the alleged excess payment dues which has been recovered from his Gratuity and
arrears of Pension may please be directed to be refunded with interest, and the remaining alleged
dues of Rs.72,700/- which is being recovered from his sanctioned monthly Pension, may also be
stopped/stayed from the recovery @ Rs.6000/6700 PM, as the case may be (Annexures P/1 to
P/3).
7.3 That, the Respondents did not settle the Pension & other service benefits since long and even
after retirement w.e.f. 31-12-2017, so far and details of such dues has not been enumerated or
supplied which may please be directed to be provided & paid with arrears and interest @ 12%.
They may kindly to be directed to provide his certified service book, GPF Pass Book & other
Service records.
7.4 That, due to the illegal action of the respondents, the petitioner and his family is suffering
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:16273
2 WP-19762-2020
with the undignified human life. The compensation to the tune of Rs. 10 Lacs may please be
directed to be awarded.
7.5 That, any other just and proper relief warranting under the facts and circumstances of the
case, be please also be directed to be awarded to the petitioner and cost of this Petition with
exemplary penalty on the erring officials of the state may please be directed to be awarded in the
ends of justice."
2. The petitioner was working with respondent department since
15.12.1979 as a Driver and after attaining the age of superannuation, he
retired from the post of Driver w.e.f. 31.12.2017. After the retirement, when
retiral dues were not paid on time, the petitioner submitted a representation,
on which as no head was paid by the Respondents, the Petitioner knocked
the door of the Court for non payment of his legal retiral dues by filing writ
petition No.2981/2018, which was disposed of by this Court vide order dated
06.02.2018, wherein it was directed to respondents No.2 and 3 therein that if
there is no other impediment in way of sanctioning the pension, petitioner's
claim be settled within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of
certified copy of the said order. Thereafter, petitioner submitted a
representation to the respondents on 12.02.2018 and again submitted
representation on 13.03.2018, but again no heed was paid. Thereafter,
contempt petition No.875/2018 was filed, which was dismissed in default on
24.09.2019. Thereafter, respondents gave the Pay fixation and Recovery
orders under RTI and incorrect PPO was issued on 27.08.2019 and 14/15-11-
2019 and on 03.01.2020 after deducting the alleged excess payment from his
gratuity and the alleged remaining portion of Rs.72,700/- was recovered
from his monthly pension from February, 2020 @ of Rs.6000/- in eleven
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:16273
3 WP-19762-2020
installments and remaining one @ Rs.6700/- as a last installment. Being
aggrieved by the said recovery, the present petition is filed by the petitioner.
3. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State submits that some
of the excess amount recovered has already been re-paid to the petitioner.
4. Heard counsel for the parties and perused the record.
5. Recovery after retirement cannot be made is settled in the light of
the Apex Court's decision in the case of State of Punjab and others vs. Rafiq
Masih reported in 2015 (4) SCC 334 , wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court
has considered the facts of number of cases, in which, excess amount was
paid to the employees/officers due to various reasons like wrongful fixation,
revision of pay etc. and after dealing with all such situations, the apex Court
has summarized all cases into 5 categories and issued directions in para 12
and held that in these cases recovery is impermissible.
6. Para 12 of the aforesaid judgment is reproduced below:
"12. It is not possible to postulate all situations of hardship, which would govern employees on
the issue of recovery, where payments have mistakenly been made by the employer, in excess of
their entitlement. Be that as it may, based on the decisions referred to herein above, we may, as a
ready reference, summarize the following few situations, wherein recoveries by the employers,
would be impermissible in law:
(i) Recovery from employees belonging to Class-III and Class-IV service (or Group 'C' and
Group 'D' service).
(ii) Recovery from retired employees, or employees who are due to retire within one year, of the
order of recovery.
(iii) Recovery from employees, when the excess payment has been made for a period in excess of
five years, before the order of recovery is issued.
(iv) Recovery in cases where an employee has wrongfully been required to discharge duties of a
higher post, and has been paid accordingly, even though he should have rightfully been required
to work against an inferior post.
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:16273
4 WP-19762-2020
(v) In any other case, where the Court arrives at the conclusion, that recovery if made from the
employee, would be iniquitous or harsh or arbitrary to such an extent, as would far outweigh the
equitable balance of the employer's right to recover.
7. As the case of the petitioner is squarely covered by clauses (i), (ii),
(iii) and (v) of the judgment passed in Rafiq Masih (Supra). Resultantly, the
writ petition filed by the petitioner is liable to be allowed as petitioner was
not responsible for wrong fixation of pay by the respondent department.
8. In view of above, Recovery orders dated 27/08/2019, 14-
15/11/2019 & 03/01/2020(Annexures P/1, P/2 and P/3) are set- aside. The
respondent department is directed to refund the amount, which has already
recovered, to the petitioner within a period of four weeks, failing which the
said amount shall carry interest @ 9% per annum till date of actual payment.
9. With the aforesaid, this petition stands allowed and disposed of.
(MILIND RAMESH PHADKE)
JUDGE
neetu
