Madhya Pradesh High Court
Bhagwan Lal Sahu vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 10 November, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:28449
1 WP-15326-2021
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. 15326 of 2021
BHAGWAN LAL SAHU
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.3,46,742/- 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.5,88,791/- 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. 28.02.2021. 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.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner, submitted that the impugned
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:28449
2 WP-15326-2021
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 by the Full Bench of this Court
in the case of State of Madhya Pradesh Vs. Jagdish Prasad Dubey reported
i n 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 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 .
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 01.01.2006 to
July' 2020. The Apex Court in the case Rafiq Masih (supra) has considered
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:28449
3 WP-15326-2021
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, 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 is 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 the indemnity bond is concerned, it is seen that the same is
obtained from the petitioner on 16.02.2021 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).
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:28449
4 WP-15326-2021
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.
10. Even otherwise, it is not the case of the respondents that the excess
amount is paid to the petitioner because of his own acts of misrepresentation.
Thus, the action of the respondents in recovering Rs.2,42,049/- 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.5,88,791/- 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/-
