Madhya Pradesh High Court
Kok Singh vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 22 July, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:15201
1 WP-27827-2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT GWALIOR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE ASHISH SHROTI
ON THE 22nd OF JULY, 2025
WRIT PETITION No. 27827 of 2022
KOK SINGH
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Ankush Jain - Advocate for the petitioner.
Shri K.K. Prajapati - GA for the respondents/State.
ORDER
The petitioner is working as Head Constable. He is aggrieved by the
impugned order dated 18/11/2022 (Annexure P/1), whereby, an amount of
Rs. 6,24,177/- has been directed to be recovered from the petitioner. It is
seen from the impugned order that an amount of Rs. 3,98,425/- is sought to
be recovered towards excess amount paid to the petitioner, while, an amount
of Rs. 2,25,752/- is directed to be recovered towards interest.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner raised a singular ground that in
view of judgment passed by the Apex Court in the case of State of Punjab Vs.
Rafiq Masih (White Washer), (2015) 4 SCC 334, the impugned recovery is
impermissible.
3. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State supported the impugned
order and submitted that the salary of the petitioner was wrongly fixed which has
resulted in payment of excess amount. Since, the petitioner was not entitled to the
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:15201
2 WP-27827-2022
salary at the higher rate, he is liable to refund the excess amount paid to him.
Learned counsel also referred to an undertaking given by the petitioner, whereby,
he has undertaken to refund the amount in case of excess payment.
4. Considered the arguments and perused the record.
5. The Apex Court in the case of Rafiq Masih (supra), has laid down
following parameters in which the recovery of amount is impermissible:-
"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 hereinabove, we may, as a ready reference, summarise
the following few situations, wherein recoveries by the employers,
would be impermissible in law:
(i) Recovery from the employees belonging to Class III and Class
IV service (or Group C and Group D service).
(ii) Recovery from the retired employees, or the employees who
are due to retire within one year, of the order of recovery.
(iii) Recovery from the 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.
(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."
6. Keeping in view the aforesaid legal position, it is found that the
petitioner is holding a Class III post of Head Constable. Further the recovery
in question relates to the period from 1/7/2006, meaning thereby, the period
during which the excess payment was made, is more than five years old.
Therefore, the petitioner is covered by the direction issued by the Apex Court
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:15201
3 WP-27827-2022
in para 18 (i) and (iii).
7. Considering the aforesaid, the impugned recovery is
impermissible. Accordingly, the impugned order of recovery dated 18/11/2022
(Annexure P/1) is set aside. Petition stands allowed and disposed of.
(ASHISH SHROTI)
JUDGE
JPS/-
