[Cites 1, Cited by 0]
Madhya Pradesh High Court
Ghanshyam Sharma vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 2 December, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:31216
1 WP-10236-2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT GWALIOR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE ASHISH SHROTI
ON THE 2 nd OF DECEMBER, 2025
WRIT PETITION No. 10236 of 2022
GHANSHYAM SHARMA
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Arun Katare - Advocate for the petitioner.
Shri Jitesh Sharma - Govt. Advocate for the respondents/State.
ORDER
The petitioner has initially filed this writ petition being aggrieved by
the endorsement made by Treasury and Accounts Department in his service-
book with regard to some wrong fixation of his salary and consequent
recovery of excess amount paid to the petitioner. This is reflected from
Annexure P/1.
2 . In response to the present writ petition, the respondents have filed
the return wherein a calculation chart is filed as (Annexure R/3) wherein a
sum of Rs.1,92,123/- has been found to be recovered from the petitioner
including interest which has been paid in excess to the petitioner.
3 . Learned counsel for the petitioner challenged the impugned
recovery on the ground that after his retirement, the recovery from
petitioner's retiral dues is not permissible in view of Apex Court judgment in
the case of State of Punjab & Ors. Vs. Rafiq Masih (White Washer) reported
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:31216
2 WP-10236-2022
in (2015)4 SCC 334.
4. On the other hand, counsel for the respondents submits that the
petitioner's salary was erroneously fixed in January' 2006. At the time of
settlement of his retiral dues, an objection was raised by the Treasury and
Accounts Department and based upon the said objection, an amount of
Rs.1,92,123/- has been found recoverable from the petitioner. He submits
that since the petitioner has been paid amount in excess to his entitlement,
the respondents are entitled to recover the same. He thus prays for dismissal
of the writ petition.
5. Considered the arguments and perused the record.
6. The Apex Court has considered the issue of recovery of excess
amount from the retiral dues of an employee in the case of Rafiq Masih
(supra) and the Apex Court has held as under:
"18. 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, summarise 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
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:31216
3 WP-10236-2022
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.
(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. Since the petitioner retired from Class-IV post and further since the
amount under recovery relates back to the year 2006, the impugned recovery
is hit by the directions of Apex Court judgment in the case of Rafiq Masih
(supra). Consequently, the impugned recovery is quashed. The respondents
are directed to refund the amount of Rs.1,92,123/- to the petitioner together
with interest @ 6% per annum from 01.08.2017 till actual payment is made.
8. Accordingly, this petition is allowed and disposed of.
(ASHISH SHROTI)
JUDGE
vpn/-
