Madhya Pradesh High Court
Om Prakash Raje vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 10 November, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:28486
1 WP-15327-2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT GWALIOR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE ASHISH SHROTI
ON THE 10th OF NOVEMBER, 2025
WRIT PETITION No. 15327 of 2021
OM PRAKASH RAJE
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Mr. Girish Kumar - Advocate for the petitioner.
Ms. Ekta Vyas- Panel Lawyer for the respondents/State.
ORDER
The petitioner his filed this writ petition challenging the order,
dated 15.05.2021, whereby an amount of Rs.1,71,284/- was directed to
be recovered from the retiral dues of the petitioner together with interest.
From the calculation chart filed as (Annexure P/5), it is gathered that
after adding interest in the aforesaid amount, Rs.2,75,679/- has been
directed to be recovered from the petitioner.
2 . The facts necessary for decision of this case are that the
petitioner retired from the post of Sub-Inspector w.e.f. 31.03.2021. After
his retirement while settlement of his retiral dues, certain objections were
raised by the Office of Treasury and Accounts with regard to the excess
amount paid to the petitioner. Accordingly, the impugned order has been
passed directing recovery of the aforesaid amount.
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:28486
2 WP-15327-2021
3 . The learned counsel for the petitioner, submitted that the
impugned recovery from the petitioner is impermissible in view of
judgment passed by Apex Court in the case of State of Punjab & Ors.
Vs. Rafiq Masih (White Washer) reported in (2015)4 SCC 334 as also
Full Bench judgment of this Court in the case of State of Madhya
Pradesh Vs. Jagdish Prasad Dubey reported in 2024(2) MPLJ 198. He
also submitted that two incumbents namely, Vrindavan Lal Sharma and
Yashwant Singh Yadav named in the impugned order also approached
this Court by filing W.P. No.9202 of 2022 and W.P. No.12312 of
2021 challenging the recovery. The said writ petitions were allowed by
this Court vide impugned order, dated 04.08.2025 & 07.04.2025
respectively. He thus submitted that the impugned action of the
respondents is liable to be set-aside and the petitioner is entitled to
refund of the amount with interest.
4. On the other hand, respondents' counsel supported the impugned
action of the respondents and submitted that the petitioner was not
entitled to get the amount paid to him in excess and, therefore, the
respondents are entitled to recover the same from him. She also
submitted that the petitioner has executed an indemnity bond which is
placed on record as Annexure R/4 and, therefore, he is bound by the
undertaking furnished by him. The learned counsel placed reliance upon
Apex Court judgment in the case of High Court of Punjab & Haryana
Vs. Jagdev Singh reported in (2016)14 SCC 267. She also submitted that
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:28486
3 WP-15327-2021
the petitioner himself deposited the amount which shows that he
accepted the excess payment made to him and, therefore, cannot
challenge the same now in the present writ petition.
5. Considered the arguments and perused the record.
6. It is not in dispute that the amount under recovery is on account
of erroneous fixation of petitioner extending to the period from
01.11.1995 to December' 2019. The Apex Court in the case Rafiq Masih
(supra) has considered the similar issue and 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 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,
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:28486
4 WP-15327-2021
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 recovery in question relates to the period prior to 05
years and the petitioner retired from Class-III post, the impugned
recovery is hit by Apex Court judgment in the case of State of Rafiq
Masih (supra).
8 . So far as the indemnity bond is concerned, it is seen that the
same is obtained from the petitioner on 12.03.2021 i.e. at the time of his
retirement. Thus, the indemnity bond is also of no help to the
respondents in view of Full Bench judgment in the case of Jagdish
Prasad Dubey (supra).
9 . The respondents' counsel placed reliance upon Apex Court
judgment in the case of Jagdev Singh (supra). However, since the
indemnity bond on which the reliance is placed upon by the respondents
is not executed at the relevant point of time in relation to which the
recovery is being made, the indemnity bond cannot be used to justify the
impugned recovery. This Court has already set-aside the recovery in
relation to Vrindavan Lal Sharma and Yashwant Singh Yadav who are
also named alongwith the petitioner in the impugned, order 15.05.2021.
The respondents' counsel also submitted that the petitioner has himself
deposited the amount in question which amounts to acceptance of
respondents' action on his part. In this regard it is seen that the deposit of
amount by petitioner is not voluntary. When his retiral dues were
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:28486
5 WP-15327-2021
withheld, he had no option to deposit the amount in question. Thus, this
act of petitioner is also covered by Full Bench judgment in the case
of Jagdish Prasad Dubey (supra).
10. Further, it is not the case of the respondents that the petitioner
has misrepresented the facts to get the excess amount. Thus, the action of
the respondents in recovering Rs.1,04,395/- towards interest, is even
otherwise impermissible.
11. In view of the discussion made above, the impugned recovery
of the respondents is unsustainable and same is hereby quashed. The
respondents are directed to refund the amount of Rs.2,75,679/- to the
petitioner together with interest @ 6% per annum from 01.05.2021 till
actual payment is made. Accordingly, this petition is allowed and
disposed of.
(ASHISH SHROTI)
JUDGE
vpn/-
